Abstract

Abstract : Aim : To compare this dressing with most widely used non-eugenol pack in the perspective of esthetics, acceptance, and healing following periodontal flap surgery.
Materials & methods : Fifty eight patients suffering from generalized chronic periodontitis, requiring periodontal flap surgery on contralateral sides of the arch, were selected and divided randomly into Group I (control) and Group II (test). In Group I, a non-eugenol dressing and in Group II light-cured dressing were applied after flap surgery. Clinical parameters debris index, plaque index & modified gingival index were recorded at baseline (day 0) & 1 week post operatively (after removal of the dressing). The data was collected & statistically analyzed .
Results : Group II showed better results than Group I when debris index, plaque index & modified gingival index scores were compared though the differences were not statistically significant. Subjects found no unpleasant taste/smell and perceived the light‑cured dressing to be better.
Conclusion : The non-eugenol dressing seemed to retain more plaque on its undersurface than light‑cure dressing. However, this did not have much influence on the healing outcome and clinical gingival parameters, which were optimal and comparable in both groups. The greater number of patients showed a preference for light cure dressing, based on its superior esthetics and taste.