Aim– Periodontal dressings have been used for protection of the surgical site.This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of light cured periodontal dressing (Barricaid) with non–eugenol periodontal dressing (Coe–Pak) following conventional flap surgery. Methods– Ten chronic periodontitis subjects requiring flap surgery on contralateral sides of the arch were selected and divided randomly into Site–A (Coe–Pak) and Site–B (Barricaid) on the basis of dressing placed post operatively. Parameters recorded were plaque index, plaque beneath dressing and questionnaire on preferred dressing material. Results– Site–B showed better results when scores of plaque index, plaque beneath dressing were compared, as the differences were statistically significant (P>0.05). A significant number of subjects found Coe–Pak to have an unpleasant appearance and thus preferred Barricaid. Conclusion– Barricaid showed better patient acceptability and proved to be a good alternative to Coe–Pak periodontal dressing.