| Literature DB >> 28770156 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dry socket may occur secondary to the removal of any tooth. However, most dry socket cases develop in the third molar region. Dry socket is multifactorial in nature and has been treated using various modalities with varying success rates. This study assessed the efficacy of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in established dry socket.Entities:
Keywords: Osteogenesis; Pain reduction; Tooth extraction; Tooth impaction; Wound Healing
Year: 2017 PMID: 28770156 PMCID: PMC5529189 DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2017.43.3.160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg ISSN: 1225-1585
Criteria for diagnosis of dry socket (tick appropriate)
| Feature | Discription |
|---|---|
| Symptom | Continuous throbbing type of pain |
| Radiating to ear, temple and neck | |
| Start of pain 1-3 days post extraction | |
| Foul taste | |
| Bad breath | |
| Pain not relieved even after medication | |
| Sign | Devoid of blood clot |
| Infected or retained roots | |
| Localised swelling | |
| Lymphadenopathy |
Fig. 1A. Photograph Showing Prepared Platelet Rich Fibrin (Prf). B. Intraoral Photograph Showing Dry Socket In Right Mandibular First Molar Region. C. Intraoperative Photograph Showing Placement Of Prf Into Dry Socket. D. Intraoperative Photograph Showing Closure Of Socket With A 3-0 Mersilk Suture. E. Intraoral Photograph Showing Healed Socket After 1 Week.
Total number of administered analgesic tablets with patient details
| Patient no. | Gender | Age (yr)1 | Tablet (n) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 41 | 3 |
| 2 | Female | 43 | 4 |
| 3 | Male | 42 | 3 |
| 4 | Female | 50 | 4 |
| 5 | Male | 49 | 2 |
| 6 | Female | 48 | 6 |
| 7 | Male | 55 | 2 |
| 8 | Female | 58 | 3 |
| 9 | Male | 58 | 3 |
| 10 | Female | 64 | 3 |
| Total male | 5 | - | 50% |
| Total female | 5 | - | 50% |
1Mean (range) of age=50.8 yr (41-64 yr).
Patients and percentage for each score at different time intervals (n=10)
| Time interval | Pain score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| At the time of examination | 2 (20) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| At the time of manipulation | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| On day 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) | 9 (90) | 0 (0) |
| On day 2 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) | 9 (90) |
| On day 3 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) |
| On day 7 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 10 (100) |
Values are presented as number (%).
Visual analogue scale results at different intervals using the Mann-Whitney test
| Time interval | Group | Patient (n) | Mean rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| At the time of examination vs manipulation | Examination | 10 | 15.50 | 0.001* |
| Manipulation | 10 | 5.50 | ||
| At the time of manipulation vs day 1 | Manipulation | 10 | 15.50 | 0.001* |
| Day 1 | 10 | 5.50 | ||
| At the time of manipulation vs day 2 | Manipulation | 10 | 15.50 | 0.001* |
| Day 2 | 10 | 5.50 | ||
| Day 1 vs day 2 | Day 1 | 10 | 15.05 | 0.001* |
| Day 2 | 10 | 5.95 |
*P<0.05 is considered significant.
The visual analogue scale results at different interval days using Kruskal-Wallis test
| Day | Patient (n) | Mean rank | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | 35.05 | 0.001* |
| 2 | 10 | 16.95 | |
| 3 | 10 | 15.00 | |
| 7 | 10 | 15.00 |
*Statistically significant.
Comparison of intake of analgesics using paired t-test
| Day | Mean | Patient (n) | Standard deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1-morning-evening | 1.00 | 10 | 0.000 | 0.168 |
| 0.80 | 10 | 0.422 | ||
| Day 2-morning-evening | 0.30 | 10 | 0.483 | 0.168 |
| 0.10 | 10 | 0.316 | ||
| Day 1-day 2 | 2.80 | 10 | 0.422 | 0.001* |
| 0.50 | 10 | 0.972 |
*Statistically significant.