The effect of periodontal dressings on the healthy periodontium

Abstract

Twenty-seven proprietory periodontal dressings were applied to the lower labial segments of 18 subjects showing low levels of gingival inflammation when assessed by the Gingival Index system at the time of application. Specimens of each dressing type were subsequently removed at intervals ranging from 3 h to 5 days. The material adhering to the deep surface of the dressing was examined by light, transmission and scanning electron microscopy and was shown to be a complex heterogeneous structure consisting of large intact epithelial cell sheets and oral bacteria in a proteinaceous matrix. Possible mechanisms which could contribute the epithelial cell and protein components to this structure were discussed. It was concluded that the dressings themselves caused little damage to the normal periodontium but could be associated with increased levels of inflammation at longer time intervals because of bacterial growth. The significance of these findings to current clinical practice is discussed.

Light-cured resin "Barricaid" - An aesthetic and biocompatible dressing: A step ahead

“…On comparing, though the mean increase in plaque score in Group II (Barricaid) was found to be slightly less in comparison with Group I (Coe-pak) from baseline to day 7, this difference was found to be statistically non-significant. These results are in accordance with the study of Heaney and Appleton[14] (1976), Pluss et al . (1975),[15] Newman and Addy (1982),[16] Sachs et al .…”

Evaluation of the healing response following placement of Coe‐pak and an experimental pack after periodontal flap surgery

“…The adverse effects of periodontal dressings have been attributed to both plaque accumulation (Heaney & Appleton 1976, Newman & Addy 1982. and to the constituents (such as eugenol) which may have a toxic (Haugen 1980, Eber et al 1989 or sensitising potential (Haugen & Hensten-Pettersen 1979), Many different dressings have beeti formulated and evaluated both in human and animal experiments (Haugen & Gjermo 1978, Watts et al 1983, Smeekens et al 1992, Gilbert et al, 1994.…”

Adhesive properties of periodontal dressings‐an in vitro study

“…A close adaptation of periodontal dressings to the wound after gingival surgery is considered to be important for optimal healing (Persson & Thilander 1968, Heaney & Appleton 1976. Leakage at the dressing/tissue interface may result in plaque accumulation and delayed healing (Loe & Silness 1961, Persson SL Thilander 1968, Pluss, Engelberger & Rateitschak 1975.…”

“…The retention of the dressing is supposed to be largely dependent on its mechanical locking in the interproximal embrasures (Baer, Sumner & Miller 1969), and the adhesive properties have been assumed to be favorable for a rapid healing without bacterial contamination of the wound. Heaney and Appleton (1976) reported that epithelial cells were found attached to periodontal dressings that had covered an intact gingiva for three hours. These findings were explained by either dimensional changes during setting of the material combined with an abrasive action on the epithelium, or by an adherance to epithelial cells and a subsequent stripping off of the cells upon removal of the dressings.…”