Antibacterial Properties of Periodontal Dressings

Abstract

The relationship between the build-up of bacterial plaque at the dento-gingival junction and the development of gingivitis is well established. The susceptibility of patients requiring periodontal surgery to the pathogenic potential of plaque would seem to necessitate the protection of the surgically treated area by a periodontal dressing until adequate plaque control by the patient is possible. In the light of clinical experience, an investigation was undertaken into the antibacterial properties of certain proprietary periodontal dressings and a zinc oxide/eugenol material. None of these materials showed any marked degree of antibacterial activity. One of these materials, Coe-Pak, had been used alone or combined with Cross Pack for all the patients in the clinical survey with very satisfactory results, and it is concluded that this material is successful because of its physical properties and not its antibacterial ones. Careful attention to asepsis, gentle and controlled tissue handling, correct technique, and thorough removal of plaque and calculus are the prerequisites for successful periodontal surgery. The protection of the surgical wound by a dressing of adequate physical properties aids in ensuring uneventful healing. The use of potent antibacterial agents in the dressing is not necessary; a physical barrier to salivary/bacterial contamination and food impaction may be the most important factor.

Periodontal dressing materials

“…Eugenol has been shown to have antibacterial properties in several studies in vitro (Linghorne & O'Connell 1949, CoU man 1962, Persson & Thilander 1968a, O'Neil 1975, Haugen et al 1977; in vivo, it has been noted that plaque composition is definitely altered, presumably as a result of selective inhibition (Coppes et al-1967, Heaney et al 1972. Pihlstrom et al (1977) considered that the total number of microorganisms was not noticeably reduced by eugenol.…”

Evaluation of the healing response following placement of Coe‐pak and an experimental pack after periodontal flap surgery

“…The incorporation of bactericidal or bacteriostatic agents in dressings has been of limited clinical value (Sachs et al 1984, Newman 1986. O'Neil (1975) reported the varied antimicrobial effect of five different dressings in vitro, and Haugen et al (1977) demonstrated a decrease in antibacterial activity of dressings with time. Bay & Langebaek (1978) showed no enhanced plaque inhibition with chlorhexidine impregnated dressings.…”

Effect of periodontal dressing on non‐surgical periodontal treatment outcomes: a systematic review

“…The prophylactic effect of local or systemic antibiotic delivery may overlap the therapeutic outcomes of periodontal dressing as observed in the treatment modalities of two of the included articles . In other words, periodontal dressings simply act as a physical barrier . Future studies should contain larger sample size, longer follow‐up and better control to verify the observations noted in this paper.…”