References

Vezeau P Dental extraction wound management: medicating postextraction sockets. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58:531-537
Field E, Nind D, Varga E, Martin M The effect of chlorhexidine irrigation on the incidence of dry socket: a pilot study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988; 26:395-401
Hermesch C, Hilton T, Biesbrock A Perioperative use of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of alveolar osteitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 1998; 85:381-387
Cardoso C, Rodrigues M, Júnior O Clinical concepts of dry Socket. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68:1922-1932
Birn H Etiology and pathogenesis of fibrinolytic alveolitis (‘dry socket’). Int J Oral Surg. 1973; 2:211-263
Sharif M, Dawoud B, Tsichlaki A, Yates J Interventions for the prevention of dry socket: an evidence-based update. Br Dent J. 2014; 217:27-30
Fazakerley M, Field EA Dry socket: a painful post-extraction complication (a review). Dent Update. 1991; 18:31-34
Alexander R Dental extraction wound management: a case against medicating postextraction sockets. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58:538-551
Daly B, Sharif M, Newton T Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12
Syrjänen S, Syrjänen K Influence of Alvogyl on the healing of extraction wound in man. Int J Oral Surg. 1979; 8:22-30
Miller W, Ripley J Foreign body potential of the constituents of BIPP. An analysis. Br Dent J. 1974; 137:278-280
Zuniga J, Leist J Topical tetracycline-induced neuritis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53:196-199
Eslami A, Van Swol R, Sadeghi E Connective tissue reactions to 3% tetracycline ointment in rat skin. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987; 45:866-872
Moore J, Brekke J Foreign body giant cell reaction related to placement of tetracycline-treated polylactic acid: report of 18 cases. J Oral and Maxillofac Surg. 1990; 48:808-812
Summers L, Matz L Extraction wound sockets. Histological changes and paste packs – a trial. Br Dent J. 1976; 141:377-379
Tasoulas J, Daskalopoulos A, Droukas C, Nikitakis N An unusual microscopic pattern of foreign body reaction as a complication of dry socket management. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015; 120
Abdullgaffar B Alvogyl dental dressing: a potential cause of complicated postextraction non-healing sockets: a clinicopathologic study of 7 cases. Int J Dent Oral Health. 2016; 2:(4)1-4
Septodont. Alveogyl. 2019. http://www.septodont.co.uk/products/alveogyl (accessed March 2021)

Alveogyl: Foreign Body Reaction

From Volume 48, Issue 4, April 2021 | Pages 299-301

Authors

Sandeep Joshi

BDS (Manc), MFDS RCS (Edin)

Dental Core Trainee, Eastman Dental Hospital, London

Articles by Sandeep Joshi

Email Sandeep Joshi

Clare Steel

BDS (Manc), MFDS RCS (Edin), M Oral Surg RCS (Eng), PGCert MedEd (Newc)

Specialty Registrar in Oral Surgery, Eastman Dental Hospital, 256 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LD

Articles by Clare Steel

Josiah Eyeson

FDSRCS(Eng), FDS(OS), PhD, FHEA

Consultant Oral Surgeon, Eastman Dental Hospital, 256 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LD, UK.

Articles by Josiah Eyeson

Abstract

Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a painful complication experienced by approximately 3–4% of patients who have undergone a dental extraction. A frequently used intra-alveolar dressing material, such as Alveogyl is commonly used to treat sockets where a diagnosis of AO is made. However, unexpected problems may be encountered by the dentist when using such materials and this article explores a case where a diagnosis of a foreign body reaction to Alveogyl was identified in a symptomatic patient with no overt clinical or radiographical signs.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Dental professionals should be aware of the possible complications with the use of Alveogyl in the treatment of alveolar osteitis, in particular foreign body reactions.

Article

Alveolar osteitis (AO), also known as dry socket, is a well-recognised complication that may occur following dental extractions. Its characteristic features include halitosis and severe pain commencing 2–3 days post-operatively, which has the potential to radiate within the maxillofacial region.1 The severity of the symptoms limits the patient's functional capability because they often present acutely to the dentist. The incidence of AO has been reported to be 3–4%.2,3

The aetiology of AO has been debated since its first identification in 1896, and a number of theories exist.4 Birn5 suggested that a combination of direct and indirect factors contributes to the development of AO, including surgical trauma and the effects of bacteria on the activation of the plasminogen pathway.6 This theory was supported by Fazakerley and Field7 who described the fibrinolytic process and the premature degradation of the blood clot in the socket. Hence, sockets are often found to contain debris and remnants of the dislodged clot.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available