An interventional study of Ceramic rotary bur and Diode laser in Gingival Overgrowth, sponsored by T.C. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 60 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-02-15.
Sponsored by T.C. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of clinical discomfort and the issues experienced by patients and to use a software image program to compare wound healing during the 2-week period following gingivectomy performed with different techniques.
Horizontal and vertical gingival overgrowth indexes were evaluated before and after surgery during each follow-up controls. The vertical distance of gingival tissue was measured from the gingival margin to the cement-enamel junction (gingival overgrowth [GO] index). Horizontal gingival values were also recorded between the tooth surfaces and the papillary tissue surface at the interdental contact point as buccolingual aspect (mesiobuccal [MB] index).
Postoperative Evaluations
The postoperative parameters, including pain, burning, edema, vascularization, erythema, epithelization, bleeding and carbonization, were recorded at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days postoperatively.
Postoperative pain, burning, erythema, vascularization, and edema were assessed via the visual analogue scale (VAS). The VAS is a 100-mm horizontal-line scale that is used to quantify subjective symptoms such as pain, burning, erythema, vascularization, and edema. In the present study, researchers used a standard VAS on which patients drew a vertical sign along a 10-cm scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (highest degree of pain). Bleeding and carbonization during the postoperative period were assessed as either present or absent. Patients evaluated their postoperative pain, burning, and bleeding values. The same researcher evaluated erythema, vascularization, edema, and epithelization values.
Evaluation of Surgical Wound Area After gingivectomy operation, the surgical site was evaluated with hydrogen peroxide to detect the presence of epithelization. A blinded researcher who used a standard digital camera to take standard magnification photographs assessed the operation area, consisting of the epithelium. The researcher examined all photographs with the assistance of an image-analyzing software program. The mesio-distal width of the maxillary right central tooth was recorded for each patient, and photographs were calibrated via the reference values. In the areas subjected to hydrogen peroxide application and experiencing tissue reaction, there was a lack of an epithelial layer in the wound area. The wound surface areas of foamy fields on the all of the groups' photographs were recorded on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 following the gingivectomies.
18 studies on the registry are indexed under Gingival Overgrowth; 1 is open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 45 is above the median of 30 across 17 interventional studies indexed under Gingival Overgrowth.
Browse Gingival Overgrowth studies →T.C. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi is the lead sponsor of 6 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
The criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows:
Exclusion Criteria:
The exclusion criteria were as follows:
For the ceramic bur group(Meisenger gingivectomies, ceramic rotary burs were used with 400-rpm rotary systems and with no serum irrigation, per the manufacturer's recommendation.
Device: Ceramic rotary bur
In the laser group (LG), a diode laser was applied to the operation sites in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines (2.8 W continuous wave mode, wavelength 980 nm). The fiber optic laser tip had a 320-μm diameter with a 2.8 W output power. The laser never made contact with the gingival tissue. The practice distance did not affect the laser spot size, which was 0.5 cm-1 cm. Smoke associated with the laser application was aspirated from the surgical site.
Device: Diode laser
In the scalpel group following the local anesthetic administration, the gingivectomy was performed with a #15 scalpel. Subsequent to the operation, the borderline of gingiva was determined via the use of a pointer dental tweezers, and excessive gingival tissue was then removed with Gracey curettes
Device: Scalpel
Gingivoplasties were performed with the same ceramic burs to easily provide a knife-edge appearance with ceramic rotary bur
Also known as: Meisenger ceramic rotary bur
The fiber optic laser tip had a 320-μm diameter with a 2.8 W output power were used in the study.
Also known as: SiroLase Advance &Xtend
Scalpel surgery were performed as control group (conventioanl group).
Postoperative wound healing change
After gingivectomy operation, the surgical site was evaluated with hydrogen peroxide to detect the presence of epithelization
Time frame: The wound surface areas of foamy fields on the all of the groups' photographs were recorded change between 1st day and 14th day following the gingivectomies.
Postoperative pain
The Visual Analogue Scale is a 100-mm horizontal-line scale that is used to quantify subjective symptoms
Time frame: Visual analogue Scale, minimum score is 0 and maximum score is 10.Change of VAS values were recorded on days between 1st and 14th days following the gingivectomies
Postoperative erythema
The Visual Analogue Scale is a 100-mm horizontal-line scale that is used to quantify subjective symptoms
Time frame: Visual analogue Scale, minimum score is 0 and maximum score is 10.Change of VAS values were recorded on days between 1st and 14th days following the gingivectomies
Postoperative burning
The Visual Analogue Scale is a 100-mm horizontal-line scale that is used to quantify subjective symptoms
Time frame: Visual analogue Scale, minimum score is 0 and maximum score is 10.Change of VAS values were recorded on days between 1st and 14th days following the gingivectomies
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: No
Ran from Apr 2016 to primary completion in Sep 2017, 17 months.
Of 11 interventional studies with no phase under Gingival Overgrowth, half reached primary completion within 10 months of starting (the median); a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 17. This study's 17 months is above that.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
T.C. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi