ABSTRACT
Background
This study was conducted to assess the clinical, immunological, and patient‐centered outcomes of microcurrent electrotherapy on palatal wound healing.
Materials
This was a parallel, double‐blind randomized clinical trial, in which 53 patients with ridge preservation indications were selected and randomly assigned to one of two groups. In the Control (Sham) group (n = 27), palatal wounds, after free gingival grafts (FGG) harvest, received sham application of electrotherapy. In the Test (EE) group (n = 26), palatal wounds, after FGG harvest, received application of microcurrent electrotherapy protocol. Clinical parameters, patient‐centered outcomes, and inflammatory markers were evaluated, up to 90 days postoperatively.
Results
The EE group achieved earlier wound closure (p <0.001) and epithelialization (p <0.05; p = 0.03) at 7 and 14 days after harvest when compared to the Sham group. Painful symptomatology was reported less frequently in the EE group than in the Sham group at 3‐day follow‐up (p = 0.008). Likewise, an improvement in Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was reported 2 days after the procedure by the EE group (p = 0.04). In addition, favorable modulation of inflammatory wound healing markers occurred when electrotherapy was applied.
Conclusion
Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that the use of a low‐intensity electrotherapy protocol may accelerate palatal wound healing and decrease patient discomfort after FGG harvest.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
from
https://aap.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/JPER.20-0122?af=R
No comments:
Post a Comment