Skip to content

Use of biological glue in the surgery of retained third molars

Comparison of mucosal healing with the use of suture and biological glue in retained third molar surgery: a pilot project

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-35szqq
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2020-04-29
Start date
2018-10-26
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Included teeth

Interventions

Surgical removal of third molars to compare tissue healing using biological glue or just conventional suture. All procedures were performed by the same dental student at the School of Dentistry of th
Procedure/surgery

Sponsors

Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Lead Sponsor
Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Collaborator

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 40 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Healthy volunteers; both genders; age between 18 and 40 years; presence of two retained lower third molars.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Volunteers with systemic diseases that alter bone metabolism; diabetes mellitus; uncontrolled heart disease; blood clotting problems; healing problems; undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy; immunodepressed.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Expected outcome 1: Difference in perimeter of the dental socket after surgery; verified through direct measurement by caliper and comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) procedures.;Outcome found 1: no significant difference;Expected outcome 2: Difference in surgical time for wound closure; checked using a stopwatch and comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) procedures;Outcome found 2: statistically favorable result for glue.;Expected outcome 3: Difference in pain indexes, verified using a visual analog scale (from 0 to 9), comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) procedures;Outcome found 3: no significant difference;Expected outcome 4: Difference in suture dehiscence rates; verified through clinical examination and photographic record, comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) groups;Outcome found 4: statistically favorable result for glue.;Expected outcome 5: Presence of edema; verified through clinical examination and self-report of the volunteers, comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) groups;Outcome found 5: no significant difference;Expected outcome 6: Difference in the degree of hematoma; verified through clinical examination, comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) groups;Outcome found 6: no significant difference;Expected outcome 7: Difference in infection rate; verified through monitoring and clinical examination, comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) groups;Outcome found 7: no significant difference;Expected outcome 8: Presence of mandibular trismus; verified through clinical examination and self-report of the volunteers, comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) groups;Outcome found 8: no significant difference;Expected outcome 9: Presence of ulcer, verified through clinical examination, comparing test (glue) and control (conventional suture) groups;Outcome found 9: no significant difference;Outcome found 1: no significant diffe

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Secondary outcomes were not expected

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactFernando Andriola

Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

fernandoandriola@gmail.com+55-51-996030790

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP)