Premium
Microcurrent electrotherapy improves palatal wound healing: Randomized clinical trial
Author(s) -
Miguel Manuela Maria Viana,
MathiasSantamaria Ingrid Fernandes,
Rossato Amanda,
Ferraz Laís Fernanda Ferreira,
FigueiredoNeto Antônio Martins,
Marco Andrea Carvalho,
Casarin Renato Corrêa Viana,
Wallet Shan Margaret,
Tatakis Dimitris N.,
Mathias Marcio Antonio,
Santamaria Mauro Pedrine
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1002/jper.20-0122
Subject(s) - electrotherapy , medicine , randomized controlled trial , wound healing , clinical trial , surgery , randomization , anesthesia , alternative medicine , pathology
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.