| Literature DB >> 32183831 |
Jin-Woo Kim1, Tae-Whan Seong1, Sura Cho1, Sun-Jong Kim2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of absorbable collagen sponge insertion in tooth extraction sites for socket healing of the impacted mandibular third molar.Entities:
Keywords: Collagen sponge; Complication; Periodontal defect; Radiographic; Surgical extraction; Third molar
Year: 2020 PMID: 32183831 PMCID: PMC7079387 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-1063-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Fig. 1Pre-operative panoramic radiograph showing impacted bilateral mandibular third molars with same Pell-Gregory and Winter classification
Baseline characteristics of included patients
| Variable | N | |
|---|---|---|
| Patients | 31 | |
| Age (years) | 23.52 (±7.14) | |
| Gender | Male | 15 |
| Female | 16 | |
| Impaction depth | Level A | 12 |
| Level B | 14 | |
| Level C | 5 | |
| Ramus relationship | Class I | 15 |
| Class II | 13 | |
| Class III | 3 | |
| Angulation | Disto-angular | 2 |
| Horizontal | 10 | |
| Mesio-angular | 18 | |
| Vertical | 1 |
Assessment of clinical complications
| Value | Time | Collagen sponge insertion | Control | Difference in difference | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref | |||||||
| −1.42 | −2.39 | −0.45 | 0.004 | ||||
| 0.19 (0.40) | 0.42 (0.85) | −2.19 | −3.16 | −1.23 | < 0.001 | ||
| 5.76 (11.63) | 7.93 (12.28) | ||||||
| 2.09 (8.63) | 2.21 (8.79) | ||||||
| −0.81 (5.98) | −0.91 (6.44) |
Abbreviations; T1, 1 week post-operatively; T2, 2 weeks post-operatively; T3, 14 weeks post-operatively; CI, Confidence Intervals
Results are shown as mean (SD)
*Indicates significant group difference (P < 0.05) between 2 groups
Fig. 2A comparison of the VAS scores for the sides that received a sponge and those that didn’t. The results are shown as the mean (SE). * indicates P < 0.05 between collagen sponge insertion versus control. Abbreviations; T1, 1 week post-operatively; T2, 2 weeks post-operatively; T3, 14 weeks post-operatively.
Assessment of probing depth
| Value | Time | Collagen sponge insertion | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mesio-Buccal | 2.45 (0.96) | 2.45 (0.96) | |
| 3.10 (0.75) | 3.39 (0.88) | ||
| 2.71 (0.74) | 2.84 (0.69) | ||
| Buccal | 2.45 (1.18) | 2.39 (1.02) | |
| 3.52 (1.23) | 4.29 (1.37) | ||
| 2.81 (0.87) | 3.03 (1.02) | ||
| Disto-Buccal | 3.65 (2.76) | 3.29 (1.83) | |
| 3.94 (1.67) | 4.58 (1.73) | ||
| Disto-Lingual | 3.39 (2.20) | 3.03 (1.47) | |
| 4.77 (1.61) | 6.00 (1.91) | ||
| 3.61 (1.43) | 4.06 (1.84) | ||
Abbreviations; T0, pre-operation; T2, 2 weeks post-operatively; T3, 14 weeks post-operatively
Results are shown as mean (SD)
*Indicates significant group difference (P < 0.05) between 2 groups
Fig. 3A comparison of the probing depths for the sides that received a sponge and those that didn’t. The results are shown as the mean (SD). * indicates P < 0.05 between collagen sponge insertion versus control. Abbreviations; T0, Pre-operation; T2, 2 weeks post-operatively; T3, 14 weeks post-operatively
Assessment of radiographic evaluation
| Value | Time | Collagen sponge insertion | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.10 (0.54) | 0.13 (0.50) | ||
| −0.03 (0.31) | −0.06 (0.36) | ||
| 0.10 (0.40) | 0.00 (0.26) | ||
| 0.32 (0.48) | 0.16 (0.45) | ||
| 0.29 (0.82) | 0.42 (0.62) | ||
| 0.06 (0.44) | −0.03 (0.41) | ||
| 0.48 (0.51) | 0.29 (0.46) | ||
| 1.16 (0.73) | 0.84 (0.73) | ||
| 0.52 (0.68) | 0.35 (0.61) | ||
| 0.29 (0.46) | 0.13 (0.43) | ||
| 0.39 (0.50) | 0.29 (0.53) | ||
| 0.71 (0.59) | 0.61 (0.56) |
Abbreviations; T0, Pre-operation; T1, 1 week post-operatively, T2, 2 weeks post-operatively; T3, 14 weeks post-operatively Results are shown as mean (SD)