Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Tissue response to different incision tools in animal model

dc.contributor.authorTorres-Augusto Neto, Renato [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorComachio, Cássio Amaro [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorde Almeida, Lilian Caldas Quirino [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorde Azambuja Carvalho, Pedro Henrique [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authordos Santos Trento, Guilherme [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPereira-Filho, Valfrido Antônio [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-01T21:03:50Z
dc.date.available2023-03-01T21:03:50Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim of this study is to compare the repair of incisions performed with microdissection electrocautery tip, conventional electrocautery tip, high potency diode laser, and conventional scalpel blade in a in vivo model. Methods: Different incisions were performed in adults Holtzman rats using the four types of instruments: microdissection electrocautery tip, conventional electrocautery tip, high potency diode laser, and conventional scalpel blade, in different periods of healing process. Thirty rats were divided into 5 groups, according to the period of euthanasia—24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 7 days, and 14 days. All animals received four incisions, each by a different method. Quantitative histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed using hematoxylin and eosin (HE) and Picrosirius Red staining. Results: Inflammatory profile and tissue repair presented small statistically significance differences comparing conventional scalpel blade and microdissection tip; moreover, both presented quantitatively superior to the others. Conclusion: It is believed that the microdissection tip can perform a dynamic incision just as a common scalpel blade, but more effective. Furthermore, it can promote a better hemostatic control of the surgical field that is comparable to conventional electrocautery tip without affecting tissue repair.en
dc.description.affiliationSchool of Dentistry Araraquara - Diagnosis and Surgery Department São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá, 1680 - Centro - Araraquara, SP
dc.description.affiliationUnespSchool of Dentistry Araraquara - Diagnosis and Surgery Department São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá, 1680 - Centro - Araraquara, SP
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01105-7
dc.identifier.citationOral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10006-022-01105-7
dc.identifier.issn1865-1569
dc.identifier.issn1865-1550
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85135277436
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/241453
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDiode laser
dc.subjectElectrocoagulation
dc.subjectMicrodissection
dc.subjectSurgical wound
dc.subjectWound healing
dc.titleTissue response to different incision tools in animal modelen
dc.typeArtigopt
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationca4c0298-cd82-48ee-a9c8-c97704bac2b0
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryca4c0298-cd82-48ee-a9c8-c97704bac2b0
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-5206-8291[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-3088-4017[2]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-9545-9620[3]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-2670-7998[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-5363-9751[5]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-8736-7507[6]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araraquarapt
unesp.departmentDiagnóstico e Cirurgia - FOARpt

Arquivos