ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of vital signs changes during 3 different dental treatments. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective longitudinal multiarm cross-over clinical trial was conducted. Three dental procedures were performed on each participant: supragingival scaling, dental restoration under local anesthesia (LA), and exodontia under LA. The following parameters were recorded for in each dental procedure: body temperature (BT), respiratory rate (RR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). Three repeated measurements of each parameter were recorded at 3 phases of each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 150 dental interventions were performed on 50 patients. Scaling caused a statistically significant rise in BT, RR, and SpO2, and a reduction in HR. Restorative treatment caused a statistically significant rise in SpO2 during LA. Exodontia caused a statistically significant rise in BT, RR, SBP (during the procedure), and SpO2 (during LA). CONCLUSIONS: Scaling and restorative treatment did not significantly impact heart rate. The respiratory rate may temporarily rise during LA injection and some dental procedures, especially exodontia. Increase in systolic blood pressure and heart rate during exodontia was tolerated by healthy patients.
Subject(s)
Dental Restoration, Permanent , Dental Scaling , Surgery, Oral , Vital Signs , Blood Pressure , Cross-Over Studies , Heart Rate , Humans , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of applying grape seed extract (GSE) gel in periodontal pockets for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. METHODS: Eighty-six sites with pocket depth (PD) >4 mm were selected from five systemically-healthy patients in whom scaling, and root planing were performed, and oral instructions were given, a week earlier. PD, gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured, and sites were then divided into the control group (N = 38) and GSE group (N = 48). Four doses of formulated 2% mucoadhesive GSE gel were applied to GSE group sites at baseline visit (T0), and 3, 6, and 9 days after T0. Similarly, a control gel was applied to the control sites. PD, PI, GI and BOP were re-evaluated after 4 weeks and 6 months of first gel application. RESULTS: Paired t test for both the control and GSE groups showed a significant reduction for all variables after 6 months of gel application (P < .05). The independent t test showed a significant difference (P < .05) only in the reduction of gingival index (mean: 0.85 ± 0.77 for control and 1.3 ± 0.8 for GSE) and plaque index (mean: 0.75 ± 0.71 for control and 1.12 ± 0.7 for GSE). CONCLUSION: The subgingival application of the formulated 2% mucoadhesive GSE gel showed significant improvement in the PI and GI only.
