Electrical stimulation enhances early palatal wound healing in mice.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Electrical stimulation (ES) has been used to treat chronic wound and other clinical applications, showing favorable results in wound closure. It was hypothesized that ES can present a positive effect on oral mucosa healing. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of ES during the palatal mucosa early healing process in Swiss mice. METHODS: Ninety animals were divided into two groups: Control (C; n = 45), which received Sham ES applications, and Test (ES; n = 45), which received ES (100 µA; 9 kHz; 660 mVpp) once a day for 3 days. A full thickness wound was performed with a 1.5 mm diameter biopsy punch in the hard palate. Histologically, the following parameters were evaluated: palatal wound closure and epithelial and connective wound edge distance (EED and CED). Furthermore, IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-10 TNF-α, and VEGF cytokine levels were evaluated by multiplex assay. The percentage of collagen fibers was assessed using the polarization method and the Smad proteins using the immunofluorescence method. RESULTS: Palatal wound closure presented a significant reduction on day 5 in the ES group (p = 0.01). Additionally, both EED and CED were shorter for all time points in the ES group (p < 0.05), and the inflammatory markers IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and VEGF were reduced (p < 0.05). There were no differences in collagen fibers and phospho-Smad2 between the groups. CONCLUSION: ES had a positive effect on early palatal wound closure outcomes, as well as on inflammatory markers.

Microcurrent electrotherapy improves palatal wound healing: Randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the clinical, immunological, and patient-centered outcomes of microcurrent electrotherapy on palatal wound healing. METHODS: This was a parallel, double-masked 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 (electrotherapy treatment [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 with 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 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.