Evaluation of hemosponge in promoting dental socket healing after 3rd mandibular premolar extraction in a feline model

Aim: To investigate the healing process following use of collagen sponges in the dental socket after extraction. Wound complications during the study were also evaluated. Methods: 32 cats were included in this study. IV administration of the combination of diazepam (0.22 mg/kg) and ketamine (10 mg/kg) was used to induce general anesthesia. Surgical extraction of both 3rd mandibular premolars was performed. The open dental sockets were divided in two groups. In Group A, the open dental socket on the left side was closed using 4-0 Monocryl in simple interrupted pattern. In Group B, the right dental socket was filled with lyophilized hydrolyzed collagen and the buccal and lingual flaps were sutured using 4-0 Monocryl and simple interrupted pattern. Meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg) was used to manage the post-extraction pain in all cats. Ampicilline 20 mg/kg was used as prophylaxis. The wounds were observed during the study to evaluate any signs of inflammation or dehiscence. Radiographs were taken to compare healing of the socket 3 weeks after the procedure. A 1 mm biopsy punch sample was taken from sockets in all cats for comparison of the healing in both groups. Results: Hemorrhage occurred only in the sockets of Group A. Remission of radiolucent area occurred in both groups. Mean score of inflammation was lower and mean scores of fibrotic reaction and fibroplasia were higher in Group B (p<0.05). Conclusions: Use of hemosponge in alveolar socket may accelerate fibroplasia and formation of the connective tissue and reduce inflammation after tooth extraction. Therefore, post-extraction use of the hemostatic agent in the dental socket is recommended.

Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions

Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with CR Z100TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC VitremerTM (3M). The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance. Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity between CR and RMGIC. Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.