Frenectomy: With and Without Suturing

Mostafa Mohammed  Al Rasheed; Dilyar Ahmed  Baban

doi:10.56056/

Authors

Mostafa Mohammed Al Rasheed B.D. S, Restorative Dentistry, Kurdistan Higher Council of Medical Specialist, Erbil, Kurdistan Region/ Iraq.
Dilyar Ahmed Baban B.D. S, M.Sc., Ph.D. Assis. Prof., Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/

Keywords:

Frenectomy, Periodontal health, Sutures, Visual Analogue Scale, Wound healing

Abstract

Background and objectives: Any variations in the frenulum's size and location could cause functional and cosmetic issues that call for surgical removal. Wound healing is a comprehensive and ever-changing procedure that involves the restoration of cellular structures and tissue layers. This study aimed to compare wound healing outcomes in frenectomy procedures performed with and without sutures.

Methods: A randomized clinical trial with 40 patients that had high frenal attachments (15 males, 25 females, ages 18-60) from Khanzad Training Center, Erbil ran from March 2023 to January 2024. Patients were split into two groups: first group (study group) had frenectomy with sutures and a periodontal pack, while the second group (control group) had frenectomy without sutures but with periodontal pack. Wound size, pain, analgesics use, and redness assessed over three weekly visits.

Results: The study found no significant difference in wound size (P=0.338) or visual analogue score (VAS) (P=0.163) scores between the study and control groups at the first visit. However, redness (P=0.042) was significantly different. By the second visit, the control group had improved wound size outcomes (P=0.04), while the study group had better analgesics intake (P=0.01). By the third visit, analgesic consumption favored the study group, but there was no significant difference in wound size or redness P=0.331 and P=0.186 respectively.

Conclusion: Appropriate suturing might speed up the healing of the wound. The control group consumed more analgesic pills even though there was no statistically significant difference in their visual analogue score records.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Divater V, Bali P, Nawab A, Hiremath N, Jain J, Kalaivanan D. Frenal attachment and its association with oral hygiene status among adolescents in Dakshina Kannada population: A cross-sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019 Nov 1;8(11):3664-7.

2. Devishree SK, Shubhashini PV. Frenectomy: a review with the reports of surgical techniques. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012 Nov; 69:1587.

3. Singh K, Nautiyal A, Bali S, Aggarwal P, Garg A. Frenectomy: A literature review. J Surv Fish Sci. 2023 Apr 27:871-5.

4. Priyanka M, Sruthi R, Ramakrishnan T, Emmadi P, Ambalavanan N. An overview of frenal attachments. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013 Jan 1;17(1):12-5.

5. Kotlow LA. Oral diagnosis of abnormal frenum attachments in neonates and infants: evaluation and treatment of the maxillary and lingual frenum using the Erbium: YAG laser. J Pediatr Dent Care. 2004;10(3):11-4.

6. Yadav RK, Verma UP, Sajjanhar I, Tiwari R. Frenectomy with conventional scalpel and Nd: YAG laser technique: A comparative evaluation. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2019 Jan 1;23(1):48-52.

7. Kathariya R, Jain H, Jadhav T. To pack or not to pack: the current status of periodontal dressings. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2015 Jul;13(2):73-86.

8. David K, Shetty N, Pralhad S. Periodontal dressings: an informed view. J Pharm Biomed Sci. 2013;26(26):269-72.

9. Kadkhodazadeh M, Baghani Z, Torshabi M, Basirat B. In vitro comparison of biological effects of Coe-Pak and Reso-Pac periodontal dressings. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2017 Jan;8(1).

10. Baghani Z, Kadkhodazadeh M. Periodontal dressing: a review article. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013;7(4):183.

11. Budisidharta Y, Syaify A, Lastianny SP. The effects of zinc oxide non-eugenol and cellulose as periodontal dressings on open wounds after periodontal surgery. Dent J Majalah Kedokt Gigi. 2020 Mar;53(1):45-9.

12. Kaur P, Dev YP, Kaushal S, Bhatia A, Vaid R, Sharma R. Management of the upper labial frenum: a comparison of conventional surgical and lasers on the basis of visual analogue scale on patient’s perception. J Periodontal Med Clin Pract. 2014;1(1):38-44.

13. Hassan A, Ahmed E, Ghalwash D, Elarab AE. Clinical comparison of MEBO and hyaluronic acid gel in the management of pain after free gingival graft harvesting: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Dent. 2021;2021(1):2548665.

14. Cohen DW. Role of periodontal surgery. J Dent Res. 1971 Mar;50(2):212-8.

15. Protásio AC, Galvão EL, Falci SG. Laser techniques or scalpel incision for labial frenectomy: a meta-analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019 Dec; 18:490-9.

16. Zaaba NA, Rajasekar A, Kk SS. Evaluation of healing following frenectomy. Bioinformation. 2021;17(12):1138.

17. Indurkar MS, Thakur K. Comparison of labial frenectomy by conventional surgical technique versus diode laser. Int J Med Sci Cur Res. 2020 Jul;3(4):153.

18. Sarmadi R, Gabre P, Thor A. Evaluation of upper labial frenectomy: A randomized, controlled comparative study of conventional scalpel technique and Er: YAG laser technique. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021 Aug;7(4):522-30.

19. Savitha AN, Christopher S, Bose S. Reso Pac—a novel periodontal dressing in comparison with coe-pak: a clinical study. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res. 2015; 2:32-7.

20. Madan E, Bharti V, Chaubey KK, Arora VK, Thakur RK, Nirwal A. Light-cured resin “Barricaid”–An aesthetic and biocompatible dressing: A step ahead. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013 Nov 1;17(6):753-6.