Bone allograft versus guided-tissue regeneration to reconstruct third molar extraction sites-a randomized clinical trial

2003 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
pp. 49-50
Author(s):  
Thomas B. Dodson
Revista Dor ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-262
Author(s):  
Maylu Botta Hafner ◽  
Juliana Zanatta ◽  
Gustavo Sattolo Rolim ◽  
Antônio Bento Alves de Moraes ◽  
Angélica Maria Bicudo Zeferino

2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (11) ◽  
pp. 1933-1941
Author(s):  
Jorge Toledano-Serrabona ◽  
Alba Sánchez-Torres ◽  
Octavi Camps-Font ◽  
Rui Figueiredo ◽  
Cosme Gay-Escoda ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1819-1826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Victoria Olmedo-Gaya ◽  
Francisco J. Manzano-Moreno ◽  
Rafael Galvez-Mateos ◽  
Maria Paloma González-Rodriguez ◽  
Cristina Talero-Sevilla ◽  
...  

Homeopathy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glaciele Maria de Souza ◽  
Ighor Andrade Fernandes ◽  
Marcos Luciano Pimenta Pinheiro ◽  
Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci

Abstract Background and Aim This preliminary study aimed to evaluate whether a homeopathic preparation (Traumeel S) might be a good option to control post-operative outcomes (pain, edema and trismus) associated with surgical removal of mandibular third molar teeth. The null hypothesis was that Traumeel S is not different from dexamethasone (gold standard) in controlling these post-operative inflammatory complications. Methods A randomized, “split-mouth”, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted. Seventeen healthy patients with a mean age of 20.94 ( ± 5.83) years had their lower asymptomatic bilateral third molars removed. Patients were randomized to receive Traumeel S or dexamethasone pre-operatively by injection into the masseter muscle; each patient acted as his/her own control. At 24, 48, 72 hours and 7 days after the surgery, the pain was evaluated according to a visual analog scale, edema through linear measurements of the face, and trismus through the maximum buccal opening. Wilcoxon statistics or paired t-test were used, and a significance level of 95% was adopted. Results For pain, the results for Traumeel S were not different (p > 0.05) from those of dexamethasone after 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. For edema, the results for Traumeel S were not different (p > 0.05) from those of dexamethasone at all post-operative evaluations. For mouth opening, the results for Traumeel S were not different (p > 0.05) from those of dexamethasone at 72 hours and 7 days after third molar extraction. Conclusion With the exception of some early post-operative findings, the null hypothesis is not rejected. Traumeel S might be a good alternative approach to dexamethasone for controlling pain, edema and trismus after third molar removal.


2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 182-186
Author(s):  
Moises A. Franco-Molina ◽  
Edgar Mendoza-Gamboa ◽  
Erika E. Coronado-Cerda ◽  
Diana Zarate-Triviño ◽  
Juan E. Arizpe-Coronado ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Abu-Ta'a

ABSTRACT Aim This randomized clinical trial compares the usefulness of adjunctive antibiotics, while strict asepsis was followed during periodontal surgery involving guided tissue regeneration. Materials and methods Two groups of 20 consecutive patients each with advanced periodontal disease were randomly assigned to treatment. They displayed one angular defect each with an intrabony component ≥3 mm, probing pocket depth and probing attachment level (PAL) ≥7 mm. Test group included 13 males, mean age 60 years, treated with enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft with modified papilla preservation technique, received oral amoxicillin 1 gm, 1 hour preoperatively and 2 gm for 2 days postoperatively. Control group included 10 males, mean age 57 years, treated with EMD and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft with modified papilla preservation technique, received no antibiotics. Outcome measures were clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, residual periodontal pocket depth (res. PD), gingival recession (GR), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and postoperative complications. Patients were followed up to 12 months after periodontal surgery involving guided tissue regeneration. Results There were no significant differences between both groups for CAL gain, res. PD, GR, BOP nor other clinical parameters, though patients’ subjective perception of postoperative discomfort was significantly smaller in the group receiving antibiotics. Conclusion Antibiotics do not provide significant advantages concerning clinical periodontal parameters nor concerning postoperative infections in case of proper asepsis. It does, on the contrary, reduce postoperative discomfort. Clinical significance Regarding the results of this study, adjunctive systemic antibiotics in combination with guided tissue regeneration may be useful in reducing postoperative discomfort but may not be helpful for improving periodontal regeneration outcomes. How to cite this article Abu-Ta'a M. Adjunctive Systemic Antimicrobial Therapy vs Asepsis in Conjunction with Guided Tissue Regeneration: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(1):3-6.


Author(s):  
MC. de la Barrera-Nunez ◽  
RM. Yanez-Vico ◽  
A. Batista-Cruzado ◽  
JM. Heurtebise-Saavedra ◽  
R. Castillo-de Oyague ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document