Peiodontal dressing recent updates and materials

Dr Mehvish Saleem
MDS
Lecturer
Department of Periodontology
Subharti Dental College & Hospital
SwamiVivekanand Subharti University
Meerut UP

DEFINITION
According to the glossary of periodontal terms by American
Academy of Periodontology in 2001, periodontal
dressing/pack is defined as a protective material applied over
the wound created by the periodontal surgical procedure.

HISTORICAL REVIEW
. Zentler in the year 1918 first recommended the use of iodoform
gauze as a periodontal dressing.
 Periodontal dressings were first introduced in 1923 when Dr A.W
Ward advocated the use of packing material around teeth following
gingival surgery. This material was called WONDRPAK consisted of
zinc oxide eugenol mixed with alcohol, pine oil and asbestos fibers.
 Kirkland in year 1934 developed a cement which was used as a post
operative periodontal dressing.

 Box & Ham(1942) described the use of a ZOE dressing to perform a
chemical curettage in treatment of NUG.Tannic acid was included
for haemostasis and astringency, while thymol was included as an
antiseptic. It was claimed that this dressing destroyed ‘spirillum’ and
‘fusiform’ bacteria present in NUG and helped contain the infection.
 Orban(1943) described a ZOE dressing with paraformaldehyde to
perform gingivectomy by chemosourgery.
 Bernier and Kaplan (1947) stated that the primary purpose of a
periodontal dressing was wound protection and that constituents
which may aid in healing are of secondary importance.

 Ariaudo &Tyrell (1957) recommended using a dressing to position
and stabilize an apically positioned flap.
 Gold(1964) felt that a dressing could be used to splint teeth as long
as it was a cement dressing that set hard.

IDEAL REQUIREMENTS OF PERIODONTAL
DRESSINGS (Bernier and Kaplan, 1967)
 They should be inert, non allergic and non irritating to the tissues.
 After mixing they should be soft and remain plastic for a sufficient
period of time to permit moulding by gentle pressure around the
teeth and into the interdental spaces.
 The surfaces should be smooth so as not to irritate oral mucosa.

 Dressings should be resistant to pressure without fracturing and
capable of withstanding displacement or distortion by cheeks lips
and tongue.
 An acceptable taste and smell.
 It should provide hemostasis.
 It should be able to inhibit bacterial growth on the surface.

 It should adapt to the tissues well and be dimensionally stable and
prevent the seepage of saliva and bacterial plaque to the wound
surface.
 It should be economical and easily available.
 It should possess a good shelf life.
 It should have a reasonable setting time.

OBJECTIVE
 To protect wound post surgically
 To obtain optimal healing.
 To protect the wound from injury while healing.
 To obtain and maintain a close adaptation of the mucosal
flap to the underlying bone (Specially apically positioned)
Contd……..

 Aid in immobilizing the graft by dissipating the pull
from alveolar mucosa.
 For patient comfort
 Prevent the formation of excessive granulation
tissue.

PROPERTIES OF PERIODONTAL
DRESSINGS
 The dressing should be soft, but still have enough
plasticity and flexibility to facilitate its placement in the
operated area and to allow proper adaptation.
 The dressing should harden within a reasonable time
 After setting, the dressing should be sufficiently rigid to
prevent fracture and dislocation.
Contd….

 The dressing should have a smooth surface after
setting to prevent irritation to the cheeks and lips.
 The dressing should preferably have bactericidal
properties to prevent excessive plaque
formation.
 The dressing must not detrimentally interfere
with healing.

FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES OF A
DRESSING (Baer 1969)
 The main purpose of a post surgical dressing is to
provide patient comfort and to protect the wound
from further injury by cheeks, tongue, food etc while it
is healing.
 It is not the function of a periodontal dressing to
control post operative bleeding. Bleeding should be
controlled before dressing is placed.

FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES OF A
DRESSING (Baer 1969)
 It is not the function of a dressing to act as a splint. If teeth
are mobile and require splinting this should be done
before hand.
 The dressing however can aid in holding the flap in
position after it has been sutured and can aid in
immobilizing a gingival graft by dissipating the pull from
the alveolar mucosa and lips.

FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES OF A DRESSING
(Baer 1969)
 It prevents proliferation and growth of granulation
tissue by filling up the ‘dead spaces’ primarily the
interdental spaces.
 It helps in maintenance of oral hygiene so that the
patient can brush the remaining teeth.

FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES OF A DRESSING
(Baer 1969)
 It gives a psychological feeling of healing to the
patient.
 It helps the patient to come for recall visits to
remove the dressing.
 It desensitize the root surface ie, protect newly
exposed root surface from temp. changes.

 Periodontal dressings are majorly classified into
 Eugenol containing
 Non eugenol containing
 But according to Glickman in 1979, periodontal dressings can be classified into:
 Eugenol containing
 Wards wonder pack
 Kirkland’s pack
 Non eugenol containing
 Coe-pack
 Peripac
 Fat containing pack
 Cynoacrylates
 Packs containing antibiotics
 Waxpack
 Periodontal varnish
 Collagen Dressing
 Chlorhexidine
CLASSIFICATION

Power
 Rosin
 Tannic Acid
 Asbestos Fibers
*Haemostatic Drugs
 Antibiotics
Liquid
 Eugenol or
 Almond or
 Peanut or
 Mineral Oil
 *TannicAcid
* Never incorporated together as it may induce liver damage
(Gooman & Gillman 1965) and local foreign body reaction
Composition of periodontal dressings
(A) with eugenol

 Eugenol has unpleasant taste
 May result in mucosal irritation
 Hypersensitivity.
 Bone sequestration of denuded bone.
SIDE EFFECTS

 Ward
 Kirkland – Kaiser

 Does not irritate
 No objectionable taste
 No sharp edges.
COMPOSITION
Powder
Zinc Oxide 0.43 gm
Rosin 0.57 gm
Zinc bacitracin 3000
units
Liquid
Zinc Oxide 42%
Hydrogenated fat 58%
or Crisco (veg. Oil )
(MixedTogether)
COMPOSITION OF PERIODONTAL DRESSINGS
(B)WITHOUT EUGENOL

 Zno eugenol packs : packs based of the reaction of Zno & eugenol
include – wondr pak developed byWard
 The addition of accelerators such as zinc acetate gives the dressings
a better working time
 It is supplied as a liquid and a powder that are mixed prior to use.
 Eugenol may produce allergic reaction ( reddening of area and
burning pain).

 Liquid and powder or paste
 These are mixed on a waxed paper pad using a spatula.The powder
or Paste is gradually incorporated into the liquid until it reaches a
dough like consistency.
 Setting time of ward’s wondrpak under oral condition 24 minutes
which was shown to be less than its working time under room
conditions because both heat and moisture accelerate the reaction
of ZOE.

 Coe –pack : in two tubes
 One tube:- oxides of various metals (ZnO) and Lorothidol (a
fungicide)
 SecondTube:- Non ionizing carboxylic acids & Chlorothymol
(Bacteriostatic).
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE NON-
EUGENOL DRESSINGS

PERIPAC
 Peripac is a valuable help for treatment of necrotic gingivitis.
 Protection of non-specific lesions or sutured margins.
 Fixation of desensitising medicaments to cervical areas.
 Temporary rebasing of immediate dentures in periodontal surgery.

FAT CONTAINING PACK
 It is available in powder-liquid form.
 . POWDER : Zinc oxide – 0.41 gms
 Rosin powder – 0.52 gms
 Zinc bacitracin – 3000 units
 LIQUID: Zinc oxide – 5%
 Hydrogenated fat – 95%
 It aids in healing and sets to a rubbery consistency, so no irritation
occurs due to it.

COMPARISON OF EUGENOL AND NON-
EUGENOL DRESSINGS
 Studies comparing the tissue irritating properties of periodontal
dressings have mainly involved comparisons between eugenol
containing and non eugenol dressings.
 Implant studies provide a more controlled environment to study the
irritating effect of dressings some have shown that eugenol
dressings are more irritating than non eugenol dressings.

 Peripac a non eugenol dressing was shown to be more irritating than
Wonderpak due to dimensional changes which caused tissue
irritation.
 The main disadvantage of eugenol dressings is that they are set
hard often with sharp edges and leave a bad taste in the patients
mouth.

 Light Cure dressing (Barricaid)
 It is a visible light cured periodontal dressing based on :
 Polyetherurethane Dimethaacrylate
 Silanated Silica
 Light cure Photoinitiator
 Accelator
 Stabilizer
 Colorant
 Favourable esthetic appearance
 Limited use.
3RD GROUP OF
PERIODONTALDRESSINGSCONTAINING
NEITHER ZINC OXIDE NOR EUGENOL

 Barricaid : Available in syringe form for direct
placement
 The syringe also suitable for an alternative indirect
technique.
 Use of visible light curing unit, is required for an
acceptable dressing.
 The single component, light activated periodontal
dressing eliminates time consuming mixing of
pastes.

 The dressing is tintled pink , is tasteless, and has a
translucent character which allows for superior
esthetics as well as site monitoring.

 Should be incorporated to prevent bacterial growth during
healing
 Most of commercial dressings exhaust antimicrobial
properties. Long before 7-14 days (O’neil 1975, Haugen et
al 1977) Antibiotics recommended are Neomycin,
Tetracyclines, Nitrofurazone.
USE OF ANTIBACTERIAL AGENTS

 Antimicrobial rinse (Controversial) Plyss et al 1975 feel
these cannot prevent formation of plaque under dressing
 Not needed if dressing is changed after 5 days.
 Dressing ARE NOT USEDTO CONTROL BLEEDING or
splinting.
USE OF ANTIBACTERIAL AGENTS

 Unnecessary - clinical studies show.
 Can be replaced by rinsing with chlorhexidine (Sanz et al 1989,
Vaughan & Garnik 1989)
 If antimicrobial agents are used it should be – Zinc bacitracin.
PERIODONTAL DRESSINGTO USE OR
NOTTO BE USED

 Zinc bacitracin is not inactivated in presence of enzymes,
not inhibited by organisms which produce penicillinase,
wide spectra of antibiotic activity, bacteriostatic as well as
bacteriocidal, not inhibited by necrotic tissues, pus,
exudates and blood serum. Rarely produces sensitivity.
Periodontal dressing to use or not to be used

 Equal lengths of the material from both the tubes should be taken
and mixed well till a homogenous mixture for 15 seconds.
 There is a reaction between metallic oxide and non-ionizing
carboxylic acid by the process of saponification.The material is
adhesive and is therefore kept in water for 2 to 3 minutes to lose its
tackiness and sets to a smooth, firm consistency.The working time
is about 20 minutes.
PREPARATION & APPLICATION OF COE-PACK

 After the pack is prepared (after mixing as mentioned
earlier) it is then rolled into 2 strips approximately the
length of the treated area.The end of 1st strip is bent in to
a hook shape and fitted around the distal surface.
 The remainder of the strip is brought forward along the
facial surface to the midline and gently pressed onto place
along the gingival margin and interproximally.

 The 2nd strip is applied from the lingual surface. It is joined to the
pack at the distal surface of the last tooth, then brought forward
along the gingival margin to the midline.
 The strips are joined interproximally by applying gentle pressure
on the facial and lingual surfaces of the pack. For isolated teeth
separated by edentulous spaces, the pack should be made
continuous from tooth covering the edentulous areas.
 It has a powerful antimicrobial property due to presence of
lorothiodol (O’Neil, 1971). It adapts closely to the tissues and
forms a barrier to saliva and oral bacteria.

Peiodontal dressing recent updates and materials

 Ensure bleeding stops
 Dry teeth and soft tissues
 Moisten surgical gloves to avoid sticking to material
 Must fill interproximal areas
 surface of dressing should be smooth
 Dressing should not cover more than apical one third of
tooth surface.
 Extension into mucobuccal fold should be checked, to
prevent dislodgement.
APPLICATIONTECHNIQUE

Never dismiss patient so long as bleeding completely stops.
 Avoid eating for 4-5 hours following placement of
dressing.
 Not to use operated side for eating.
 To report, if there is bleeding/ hemorrhage
 Chill over operated area from outside for 2-3 hrs.
 To report if dressing comes off. Dressing need to be kept
at least for one week.
 Use antimicrobial mouth wash 8 hourly.
INSTRUCTIONSTO PATIENTS

REMOVAL OFTHE PACK
 Insert a tip of Plastic instrument under the border of the dressing
and apply lateral pressure.
 Remove fragments of dressing gently with cotton pliers to avoid
scratching the thin epithelial covering of the healing tissues.
 Use a curette for particles near the gingival surface.
 Syringe with a gentle stream of warm water.

 Cynoacrylates is a generic name meaning an adhesive agent
consisting of an acrylic resin and binds two moist surfaces.
 It is available in a spray gun from which can be sprayed directly on
the oral tissues and solidifies within 5 - 10 sec. also available in liquid
form which is applied on the wound.
CYNOACRYLATES

 It sets by polymerization in presence of moisture and even blood
with release of heat and pressure.
 When cyanoacrylate adhesive is used after sutures have been placed
to position the tissues in place, the sutures can be removed
immediately after polymerization as they act as an irritant to the
tissues. (Ochstein et al 1969)
CYNOACRYLATES

 WAX PACK:
 It is a mixture of coca butter and paraffin which is
mixed in equal amounts and is cut in strips and
applied over the wound area.
 PERIODONTALVARNISH:
 It consists of gum or copal dissolved in organic
solvents like ether and chloroform.

COLLAGEN DRESSINGS
 Collagen dressings (e.g., Colla product from Zimmer Dental,
Carlsbad, CA, USA) are biological dressings which create a
physiological interface between the wound and the environment
and encourage healing.
 The advantage over other dressings include ease of application,
non-immunogenic, non-pyrogenic, hypoallergenic properties.
 Moreover, an inherent property of native collagen is the ability to
promote hemostasis.

 Additionally, the structure of absorbable collagen provides a 3-
dimensional matrix for strengthening the blood clot.
 Commercially available collagen dressings have three forms: tape
(colla tape; Zimmer Dental, Carlsbad, CA, USA), cote ( Collacote
;Zimmer Dental, Carlsbad, CA, USA), and plug (collaplug;
Zimmer Dental, Carlsbad, CA, USA).
Steer et al 2002
 It is type I collagen derived from bovine tendon.
 The sponge is approximately 3 mm thick & can be cut to fit the graft
site (Trisha and young 1993).

DRESSINGSAND CHLORHEXIDINE
 Chlorhexidine is an established antibacterial agent.
 In 1989, most commercial periodontal dressings claiming to have
initially good antimicrobial activity, lost this activity shortly after
application.
 Thus the addition of chlorhexidine of dressings to improve their
properties was proposed.

 As early as Addy and douglas tested the antibacterial properties of a
chlorhexidine – containing gel in vitro and in vivo – Metacrylate gel.
 Chlorhexidine salts were also incorporated into the dressings in the
form of a powder mixed along with the dressing material.
 Pluss et al 1975 incorporated 15-20mg of chlorhexidine
dihydrochloride in a periodontal dressing (Peripac) and
documented a significant reduction in the amount of plaque
formation.
 In a study by Zyskind et al – Chlorhexidine varnish.

DISADVANTAGES OF DRESSINGS
 Dressings might displace the flap.
 They entrape the sutures beneath it.
 They force the dressing material under the flap during
placement.
 It promotes plaque retention.

TO SUMMARIZE:
 Thus based on recent studies it appears the periodontal dressings
do not improve post operative healing and do not provide a
significantly greater degree of patient comfort.
 Furthermore, a dressing will play some part in the retention of an
apically positioned flap preventing undesirable coronal movement.
As regards comforts opinion are in conflict as to whether a dressing
is required and this problem is not easily studied because of the
subjective phenomena involved.

Peiodontal dressing recent updates and materials

More Related Content

Similar to Peiodontal dressing recent updates and materials (20)

More from Priyanka Pai (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Peiodontal dressing recent updates and materials