(Teruplug) wound dressing for tooth extraction site.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“Almost completed epithelization” or “About 3/4 epithelization” were not found in anypatient either in the indication side or the control side, while “No epithelization” wasobserved in 11 patients (44%) in the indication side and in 19 patients (73%) in the controlside. At 1 week after extraction, either “Almost completed epithelization” or “About 3/4epithelization” was observed in 16 patients (62%) in the indication side and in 8 patients(32%) in the control side, while “No epithelization” was not observed in any patient.With time passage, immediately after tooth extraction, at 1 day and at 1 week after toothextraction, increased degree of epithelization was observed. It was also noted that degreeof epithelization was more advanced in the indication side than that in the control side.With regard to superiority of Teruplug ® in an extent of epithelization, as is shownin Table 12, at 1 day after extraction, “Higher extent of epithelization” was found in 11patients (44%), and “Lower extent of epithelization” was not found in any patient (0%).At 1 week after tooth extraction, “Higher extent of epithelization” was found in 11patients (46%), and “Lower extent of epithelization” was found in 3 patients (13%). Soit was recognized that either at 1 day or at 1 week after tooth extraction, Teruplug ®indication patients showed higher extent of epithelization (Figs. 5 and 6).Observation of epithelization process for both agents was as follows: inTeruplug ® indication patients, one-layer granulation tissue was formed on Teruplug ®surface immediately after tooth extraction, then it started epithelization, while in Spongel ®indication patients, granulation tissue was not formed on Spongel ® surface.Epithelization gradually advanced from the marginal gingiva around the tooth extractioncavity, then finally the epithelium covers tooth extraction cavity. In some of Teruplug ®indication patients, both epithelization from the margin of tooth extraction cavity,similarly to Spongel ® indication patients, and epithelization from Teruplug ® surface wereobserved. This reason may be as follows: at the time of indication of Teruplug ® , if themargin of Teruplug ® is indicated with the same level of the marginal gingiva,epithelization from Teruplug ® surface will advance, while if the margin of Teruplug ® isindicated lower, both epithelization from the margin and epithelization from Teruplug ®surface will advance. In all the Spongel ® indication patients, epithelization from themargin advanced, while epithelization from Spongel ® surface was not observed.Generally, healing of tooth extraction cavity develops from blood clot stage, andadvances to granulation tissue stage, porosis stage, and healing stage. Epithelization ofsurface of tooth extraction cavity advances concurrently with formation of granulation20
tissue 1, 2) . Teruplug ® is excellent in this granulation formation, so in Teruplug ® indicationpatients, epithelization may advance comparatively earlier stage, and in Spongel ®indication patients, granulation formation 12) within the tooth extraction cavity may be slowcompared to that in Teruplug ® . Epithelization from the margin develops in advance, soepithelization from the tooth extraction cavity surface may be delayed when compared tothat in Teruplug ® indication patients.6) Presence or absence of adverse reactionPresence or absence of adverse reaction was examined in localized extraction siteat 1 week after tooth extraction as is shown in Table 4. Both in the indication side andthe control side, all through the period from immediately after tooth extraction to 1 weekafter tooth extraction, no patients showed symptoms suggesting adverse reactions. Thus,there are no problems in safety at localized tooth extraction site in either agents.7) With regard to superiority of wound depressionSuperiority of Teruplug ® in wound depression was evaluated at 1 week aftertooth extraction. As is shown in Table 13, “Smaller depression compared to control”was observed in 16 patients (59%) and “Larger depression compared to control” was notobserved in any patient (0%), which indicates superiority of Teruplug ® indication patientsin wound depression (Figs. 7 and 8).In Spongel ® indication patients, epithelization from Spongel ® surface was notobserved. Epithelization gradually advanced from the marginal gingiva around the toothextraction cavity, finally epithelium covered the tooth extraction cavity. These indicatemechanism as follows: Spongel ® surface is exposed for a long time, during which itssurface is scraped due to saliva or food debris, and after that epithelization from themargin occurs, which may cause the wound depression.Whereas, in Teruplug ® indication patients, collagen portion of Teruplug ® hassuperiority in cellular invasiveness or cellular activity, that is, biostability 10) so granulationis formed on Teruplug ® surface in earlier stage and epithelization advances withoutscraping Teruplug ® surface, which produces smaller wound depression.ConclusionBullet atelo-collagen sponge (Teruplug ® ) and gelatin sponge (Spongel ® ) that are21
Page 6: (1988), provide evidence for the si
Page 9 and 10: judged as “indication side had a
Page 11: Table 9 Fixation effectImmediately
Page 15 and 16: were categorized as “judgment is
Page 17 and 18: DiscussionCollagen composed of Teru
Page 19: there were 4 patients who were admi

(Teruplug) wound dressing for tooth extraction site.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?