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– Fifteen 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 pain and discomfort scores, plaque index and modified gingival index and preferred dressing material. Results– Site–B showed better results when scores of modified gingival index, pain and discomfort were compared, though the differences were statistically non–significant (P>0.05). A significant number of subjects (93.3%) 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.