Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tissue response to different incision tools in animal model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jaeger F, Chiavaioli GM de O, de Toledo GL, Freire-Maia B, Amaral MBF, de Abreu MHNG et al (2020) Efficacy and safety of diode laser during circumvestibular incision for Le Fort I osteotomy in orthognathic surgery: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci 35(2):395–402

  2. Jin J-Y, Lee S-H, Yoon H-J (2010) A comparative study of wound healing following incision with a scalpel, diode laser or Er, Cr:YSGG laser in guinea pig oral mucosa: a histological and immunohistochemical analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 68(4):232–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agren MS, Mertz PM, Franzen L (1997) A comparative study of three occlusive dressings in the treatment of full-thickness wounds in pigs. J Am Acad Dermatol 36(1):53–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Krafts KP (2010) Tissue repair: the hidden drama. Organogenesis 6(4):225–233

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Massarweh NN, Cosgriff N, Slakey DP (2006) Electrosurgery: history, principles, and current and future uses. J Am Coll Surg 202(3):520–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gelman CL, Barroso EG, Britton CT, Haklin MF, Staren ED (1994) The effect of lasers, electrocautery, and sharp dissection on cutaneous flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 94(6)

  7. Angiero F, Parma L, Crippa R, Benedicenti S (2012) Diode laser (808 nm) applied to oral soft tissue lesions: a retrospective study to assess histopathological diagnosis and evaluate physical damage. Lasers Med Sci 27(2):383–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rich L, Whittaker P (2005) Collagen and picrosirius red staining: a polarized light assessment of fibrillar hue and spatial distribution. J Morphol Sci 22(2):97–104

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nagargoje GL, Badal S, Mohiuddin SA, Balkunde AS, Jadhav SS, Bholane DR (2019) Evaluation of electrocautery and stainless steel scalpel in oral mucoperiosteal incision for mandibular anterior fracture. Ann Maxillofac Surg 9(2):230–234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Aird LNF, Brown CJ (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical skin incisions. Am J Surg 204(2):216–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ram M, Singh V, Kumawat S, Kant V, Tandan SK, Kumar D (2016) Bilirubin modulated cytokines, growth factors and angiogenesis to improve cutaneous wound healing process in diabetic rats. Int Immunopharmacol [Internet] 30:137–49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2015.11.037

  12. Lattouf R, Younes R, Lutomski D, Naaman N, Godeau G, Senni K et al (2014) Picrosirius red staining: a useful tool to appraise collagen networks in normal and pathological tissues. J Histochem Cytochem 62(10):751–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bornstein E (2004) Near infra red dental diode lasers. Scientific and photobiologic principles and applications. Dent Today 23:102–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma R (2012) Safety of colorado microdissection needle (stryker) for skin opening in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 11(1):115–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bashetty K, Nadig G, Kapoor S (2009) Electrosurgery in aesthetic and restorative dentistry: a literature review and case reports. J Conserv Dent 12(4):139–144

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Dayan D, Hiss Y, Hirshberg A, Bubis JJ, Wolman M (1989) Are the polarization colors of Picrosirius red-stained collagen determined only by the diameter of the fibers? Histochemistry 93(1):27–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Butler PEM (1991) Improved wound healing with a modified electrasurgical electrode 1(15)

  18. D’Arcangelo C, Di Nardo Di Maio F, Prosperi GD, Conte E, Baldi M, Caputi S (2007) A preliminary study of healing of diode laser versus scalpel incisions in rat oral tissue: a comparison of clinical, histological, and immunohistochemical results. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103(6):764–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chandra RV, Savitharani B, Reddy AA (2016) Comparing the outcomes of incisions made by colorado microdissection needle, electrosurgery tip, and surgical blade during periodontal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Periodontol 20(6):616–622

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kara C (2008) Evaluation of patient perceptions of frenectomy: a comparison of Nd:YAG laser and conventional techniques. Photomed Laser Surg 26(2):147–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilder-Smith P, Arrastia AM, Liaw LH, Berns M (1995) Incision properties and thermal effects of three CO2 lasers in soft tissue. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 79(6):685–691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith KC (1991) The photobiological basis of low level laser radiation therapy. LASER Ther 3(1):19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson MA, Gadacz TR, Pfeifer EA, Given KS, Gao X (1997) Comparison of CO2 laser, electrocautery, and scalpel incisions on acute-phase reactants in rat skin. Am Surg 63(1):13–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Azevedo LH, de Sousa SCOM, Correa L, de Paula EC, Dagli MLZ, Romanos G et al (2008) Mast cell concentration in the wound healing process of incisions made by different instruments. Lasers Med Sci 24(4):585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for supporting the research.

Funding

The authors declare that this work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant #2017/19363–7.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, Araraquara - Diagnosis and Surgery Department, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá, 1680 - Centro - Araraquara, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil

    Renato Torres-Augusto Neto, Cássio Amaro Comachio, Lilian Caldas Quirino de Almeida, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja Carvalho, Guilherme dos Santos Trento & Valfrido Antônio Pereira-Filho

Authors
  1. Renato Torres-Augusto Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cássio Amaro Comachio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lilian Caldas Quirino de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pedro Henrique de Azambuja Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guilherme dos Santos Trento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valfrido Antônio Pereira-Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Renato Torres Augusto Neto, Cássio Amaro Comachio, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja Carvalho, Guilherme dos Santos Trento, and Valfrido Antônio Pereira-Filho. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Renato Torres Augusto Neto and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renato Torres-Augusto Neto.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed during studies involving animals were in accordance to ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) and with the ethical standards of the institution at which the studies were conducted—ethical approval was obtained by Animal Use Ethics Committee (CEUA) (Process nº 08/2017) from Araraquara Dental School, Sao Paulo State University – UNESP.

Consent to participate

Not applicable for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 3111 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Torres-Augusto Neto, R., Comachio, C.A., de Almeida, L.C.Q. et al. Tissue response to different incision tools in animal model. Oral Maxillofac Surg 27, 631–638 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01105-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01105-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation