![]() |
Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal |
|
|
|||
|
Volume 12 No 3&4 May - July, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
Influence of Surgicel gauze on the incidence of dry socket after wisdom tooth extraction
A.M. Suleiman1
ÊÃËíÑ ÔÇÔ ÇáÓíÑÌíÓíá Úáì ÍÏæË ÇáÓäÎ ÇáÌÇÝ ÈÚÏ ÞáÚ ÖÑÓ ÇáÚÞá
ÃÍãÏ ÓáíãÇä
ABSTRACT: We At a hospital in Damman, Saudi Arabia, it was noticed that many patients had developed dry socket after surgical removal of wisdom teeth. To enhance haemostasis, Surgicel™ (oxidized cellulose) gauze was sometimes used in the tooth socket in patients who were operated under general anaesthesia. An analysis was made of the records of 104 lower wisdom teeth removed surgically from 86 patients. The incidence of dry socket in the 20 Surgicel-treated teeth was 25.0%, compared with 6.0% among the 84 non-Surgicel-treated teeth. The use of Surgicel in wisdom tooth extraction seems to be associated with an increased incidence of dry socket.
Influence du pansement Surgicel® sur l’incidence de l’alvéolite après extraction d’une dent de sagesse
RÉSUMÉ: On a constaté dans un hôpital de Damman (Arabie saoudite) que de nombreux patients avaient développé une alvéolite après extraction chirurgicale d'une dent de sagesse. Pour améliorer l’hémostase, le pansement Surgicel® (cellulose oxydée) a parfois été utilisé dans l’alvéole dentaire chez des patients opérés sous anesthésie générale. Une analyse des dossiers de 104 extractions chirurgicales de dents de sagesse inférieures réalisées chez 86 patients a été effectuée. L’incidence de l’alvéolite pour les 20 dents traitées avec des compresses Surgicel® s’élevait à 25,0 % contre 6,0 % pour les
84 dents n’ayant pas été traitées avec ces compresses. L’utilisation de Surgicel® dans l’extraction de dents de sagesse est associée à une augmentation de l'incidence de l’alvéolite
1Faculty of Dentistry,
University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan (Correspondence to A.M. Suleiman:
drahmedsuliman@yahoo.com).
Received: 28/09/03; accepted: 11/11/04
Introduction
Dry socket or post-extraction alveolitis is a poorly understood form of
inflammation occurring in a socket following removal of a tooth. The condition
is more common in the mandible than in the maxilla and in the posterior teeth
compared to the anterior [1–4]. There is no definitive cause for this condition
but many precipitating factors have been implicated [5–8], including frequent
changing of pressure-dressing gauze, frequent mouth rinsing [8], underlying
infection [9–11], smoking [12], oral contraceptive use [13], undue surgical
trauma, [1–4,14] and excessive amounts of local anaesthesia [17]. In addition,
the condition has been reported to occur more frequently in patients aged over
40 years [2,9].
Clinically the patient presents with pain often radiating to the ear on the same
side as tooth extraction. Examination reveals an acutely painful tooth socket
containing bare bone and some broken-down blood clots. Upon removal of the
latter, the socket walls look white and clear of granulation tissue [3,4].
Several methods are reported to reduce the incidence of dry socket [16,19–22].
These include the use of chlorohexidine mouthwashes [20,22], the placement of
medicated packing into the extraction sockets [22,23] and the prophylactic use
of metronidazole and lenampicillin [24,25].
Oxidized regenerated cellulose gauze (Surgicel™, Johnson & Johnson, Piscataway,
New Jersey, USA) is a haemostatic packing agent that accelerates the clotting
mechanism [25]. The material, when soaked with blood, swells to form a
gelatinous mass that plugs the bleeding site and hence stops bleeding. Surgicel
is one of the most commonly used bioabsorbable topical haemostatic agents used
in general surgery. In periodontal surgery it was found to enhance healing [26],
while in bone surgery it was reported to slightly retard healing [27,28].
Surgicel is not frequently used in oral surgery practice and the only indication
of use is when there is bleeding that cannot be controlled by simple packing
measures and suturing.
In the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Al-Mouwasat Hospital,
Dammam, Saudi Arabia, it was noticed that a number of patients developed dry
socket after wisdom tooth removal under general anaesthesia. The records of
these patients showed that in many cases Surgicel was placed in the tooth socket
following tooth removal to enhance haemostasis. It was therefore decided to
investigate the relationship between the occurrence of dry socket among these
patients who had their wisdom teeth removed surgically and the use of the
product Surgicel.
Methods
The records were studied for all patients who had their wisdom teeth removed
surgically during the period November 1996 to June 1998 at the Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Al-Mouwasat Hospital. Patients operated outside
this period as well as patients treated by general dentists in the department
were not included. Wisdom teeth with periapical pathosis or existing
pericoronitis were excluded from this study. Carious wisdom teeth with no
periapical pathology as well as wisdom teeth with treated pericoronitis were
included in the study.
One person (an oral and maxillofacial surgeon) performed all the surgical
procedures. A class 1 envelope flap with a distal relieving incision was raised.
The bone around the tooth was removed using an electrical drill. Of the lower
wisdom teeth removed under general anaesthesia, some sockets had Surgicel placed
into them to achieve haemostasis. Black silk (3/0) suture was used to close the
wound edges. All patients had an antibiotic cover of clindamycin 150 mg every 8
hours, for 6–7 days post-operatively, together with chorhexidine mouth rinse to
be used every 8 hours, beginning the next day following the operation. Sutures
were removed after 6 days.
The results were analysed using the chi-squared test.
Results
The study included 86 patients (48 males, 38 females); 42 of these patients had
their wisdom teeth (60 teeth) removed under general anaesthesia, while the
remaining 44 patients had their wisdom teeth (44 teeth) removed under local
anaesthesia. Mesio-
angular impaction was the commonest type of impaction removed, followed by
distoangular and horizontal impaction (56%, 37% and 8% of the patients
respectively). The age of the patients ranged from 20 to 50 years.
Of the 60 lower wisdom teeth removed under general anaesthesia, 20 sockets had
Surgicel placed into them to achieve haemostasis.
Overall 10 patients reported to the oral surgery clinic after 2–3 days
complaining of severe pain at the site of surgery. Clinical examination revealed
that all these patients had developed dry socket. Of the 10 patients, 7 were
males and the remaining 3 were females. None of the females who developed this
complication were taking oral contraceptives. The rest of the patients had an
uneventful recovery.
The overall incidence of dry socket was 9.6% (10/104 teeth removed) (Table 1).
Of the teeth removed and treated with Surgicel, 25.0% (5/20 teeth) showed dry
socket (Table 1). Two patients developed a short-lived numbness of the lower
lip, probably due to surgical trauma. In patients who had both lower wisdom
teeth removed, bilateral dry socket was not seen. In the teeth removed and
treated without Surgicel, only 6.0% (5/84 teeth) developed dry socket, an
incidence whish is significantly lower that the Surgicel-treated group
(chi-squared test, P < 0.02). In the non-Surgicel group, 3/40 (7.5%) teeth were
removed under general anaesthesia and 2/44 (4.5%) under local anaesthesia (P >
0.05, not significant)

Discussion
Dry socket results from a disruption of the normal healing mechanism. The
incidence rate of this event is variable, ranging from 4.1% to 30%, and
associated with a number of predisposing factors as well as the type of
prophylaxis used [1,5,8].
In this study the overall incidence of dry socket after wisdom tooth removal was
9.6%, which is similar to other findings previously reported [1–4,7]. A higher
rate of dry socket was found among patients having their wisdom teeth removed
under general anaesthesia (7.5%) than under local anaesthesia (4.5%). This
finding, although not significant, may be due to the severity of surgical trauma
rendered, as many of these wisdom teeth were buried deep in the mandible. The
incidence of dry socket among the Surgicel-treated teeth was significantly
higher (25.0%) than in the non-Surgicel-treated teeth (6.0%), under local and
general anaesthesia.
Surgicel is one of the most common biodegradable materials used to facilitate
haemostasis and control bleeding. The material causes haemostasis by a physical
mechanism rather than a chemical reaction, i.e. by compressing the bleeding
vessels rather than influencing the clotting factors per se [25]. The phenomenon
of dry sockets in patients in whom Surgicel was used is probably precipitated by
the continued chemical effect of the material, which has been found to degrade
and to resorb slowly at surgery sites [29,30]. According to the manufacturer’s
instructions, users should be cautious when using Surgicel in solid bony
cavities [25]. This may be the reason for our findings. However, this was a
simple observational study and a properly designed experimental study is needed
to take account of the many confounding factors, such as the type of impaction
of the tooth, the degree of impaction of the tooth, the amount of surgical
trauma rendered, and the amount of debridement and socket washing performed.
In summary, Surgicel is a potent haemostatic agent, the application of which in
extraction sockets was associated with an increase in the incidence of dry
socket after wisdom tooth extraction. If is to be applied it should be removed
once haemostasis is achieved.
References
1. Oginni FO, Fatusi OA, Alagbe AO. A clinical evaluation of dry socket in a
Nigerian teaching hospital. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2003,
61(8):871–6.
2. Jaafar N, Nor GM. The prevalence of post-extraction complications in an
outpatient dental clinic in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia—a retrospective survey.
Singapore dental journal, 2000, 23(1):24–8.
3. Turner PS. A clinical study of “dry socket”. International journal of oral
surgery, 1982, 11:226–31.
4. Sisk AL et al. Complications following removal of impacted third molars: the
role of the experience of the surgeon. Journal of oral and maxillofacial
surgery, 1986, 44:855–59.
5. Quinley JF et al. “Dry socket” after mandibular odontectomy and use of
soluble tetracycline hydrocholoride. Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral
pathology, 1960, 13:38–42.
6. Birn H. Aetiology and pathogenesis of fibrinolytic alveolitis (dry socket).
International journal of oral surgery, 1973, 2:211–63.
7. Krekmanov L, Hallander HO. Relationship between bacterial contamination and
alveolitis after third molar surgery. International journal of oral surgery,
1980, 9:274–80.
8. Sweet JB, Butler DP. Predisposing and operative factors: effect on the
incidence of localized osteitis in mandibular third-molar surgery. Oral surgery,
oral medicine, and oral pathology, 1978, 46:206–15.
9. Rud J. Removal of impacted lower third molars with acute pericoronitis and
necrotising gingivitis. British journal of oral surgery, 1970, 7:153–60.
10. Nitzan DW. On the genesis of “dry socket”. Journal of oral and maxillofacial
surgery, 1983:41:706–10.
11. Sorensen DC, Preisch JW. The effect of tetracycline on the incidence of
post-
extraction alveolar osteitis. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 1987,
45:1029–33.
12. Sweet JB, Butler DP. The relationship of smoking to localized osteitis.
Journal of oral surgery, 1979, 37:732–5.
13. Garcia AG et al. Does oral contraceptive use affect the incidence of
complications after extraction of a mandibular third molar? British dental
journal, 2003, 194(8):453–5.
14. Hansen EH. Alveolitis sicca dolorosa (dry socket): frequency of occurrence
and treatment with trypsin. Journal of oral surgery, anaesthesia and hospital
dental service, 1960, 18:409–16.
15. Swanson AE. Reducing the incidence of dry socket: a clinical appraisal.
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, 1966, 32:25–33.
16. Sweet JB, Butler DP, Drager JI. Effect of lavage techniques with third molar
surgery. Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology, 1976, 41:152–8.
17. Lehner T. Analysis of one hundred cases of dry socket. Dental practice,
1958, 8:75.
18. Meyer RA. Effect of anaesthesia on the incidence of alveolar osteitis.
Journal of oral surgery, 1971, 29:724–6.
19. Sweet JB et al. Nitroblue tetrazolium and Limulus assays for bacteremia
after dental extraction: effect of topical antiseptics. Journal of the American
Dental Association, 1978, 96:276–82.
20. Hermesch CB et al. Perioperative use of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate for
the prevention of alveolar osteitis: efficacy and risk factors analysis. Oral
surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics, 1998,
85(4):381–7.
21. Trieger N, Schlagel GD. Preventing dry socket. A simple procedure that
works. Journal of the American Dental Association, 1991, 122:67–8.
22. Bloomer CR. Alveolar osteitis prevention by immediate placement of medicated
packing. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and
endodontics, 2000, 90(3):282–4.
23. Rood JP, Murgatroyd J. Metronidazole in the prevention of “dry socket”.
British journal of oral surgery, 1979, 17:62–70.
24. Yoshii T et al. Differences in postoperative morbidity rates, including
infection and dry socket, and differences in healing process after mandibular
third molar surgery in patients receiving 1-day or 3-day prophylaxis with
lenampicillin. Journal of infection and chemotherapy, 2002, 8(1):87–93.
25. Essential product information: Surgicel, Surgicel Fibrillar and Surgicel Nu-Knit
absorbable hemostats (oxidized regenerated cellulose). Piscataway, New Jersey,
Johnson & Johnson, (http://www.jnjgateway.com/public/USENG/SURGICEL_FIBRILLAR_Labeling_Information.pdf,
accessed 8 January 2006).
26. Galgut PN. Oxidized cellulose mesh. I. Biogradable membrane in periodontal
surgery. Biomaterials, 1990, 11(8):561–4.
27. Mattsson T et al. ACP and Surgicel in bone hemostasis. A comparative
experimental and histologic study. Swedish dental journal, 1990, 14(2):57–62.
28. Matthew IR et al. Subperiosteal behaviour of alginate and cellulose wound
dressing materials. Biomaterials, 1995, 16(4):275–8.
29. Singh M et al. Potential biosoluble carriers: biocompatibility and
biodegradability of oxidized cellulose. Biomaterials, medical devices, and
artificial organs, 1997, 7(4):495–512.
30. Voormolen JH et al. Hemostatic agents: brain tissue reaction and
effectiveness. A comparative animal study using collagen fleece and oxidized
cellulose. Neurosurgery, 1987, 20(5):702–9.
|
Communicable disease profile for Iraq |