Comparison of primary and secondary closure with a buccal mucosal-advancement flap on postoperative course after mandibular impacted third molar surgery

Radiological findings associated with postoperative wound infection after extraction of impacted mandibular third molar: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Studies directly relating radiological findings to the risk of postoperative wound infection (PWI) in impacted mandibular third molars (M3) are limited and poorly understood. This study aimed to clarify the radiological risk of PWI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-six patients who developed PWI after M3 extraction were retrospectively analyzed using orthopantomography (OPG) and computed tomography (CT) before M3 extraction to determine the association between M3 impaction status and PWI. These were compared with an equal number of non-infected groups. Moreover, the possibility of assessing the same risk in OPG as in CT imaging was examined.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis identified class III and position B of the Pell and Gregory classification system as independent risk factors for PWI. On CT, an axial overlap distance (AOD) >3.5 mm was significantly associated with PWI. Furthermore, the sagittal overlap distance (SOD) and AOD of the OPG were significantly greater in group III-B. A strong positive correlation was observed between SOD and AOD.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that class III, position B, and an AOD >3.5 mm may be novel risk factors for M3 PWI. The strong correlation between SOD and AOD suggests that the risk assessment for PWI can be performed by evaluating OPG alone.

Comparison of two suture techniques on the inflammatory signs after third molars extraction-A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Wound closure technique is an operative factor that influences early post-operative complications after third molar surgery. This study investigates and compared the effectiveness of two closure techniques, primary closure and healing by second intention of the oblique incision on postsurgical discomfort after mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, split mouth controlled trial. Surgical sites were divided into two groups Control group received simple sutures in both alveolar crest incision and oblique incision and intervention group received simple sutures in alveolar crest incision, while the oblique incision healed by second intention. All the patients were instructed to measure pain according to visual analogue scale (VAS) in postoperative period, swelling, mouth opening was assessed at 72h and 7 days after surgery. The wound healing was assessed on day 7.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients, who had bilateral impacted third molars of similar surgical difficulty, were recruited. Thirty-one successfully completed the study. Patients in the second intention group had significantly less pain at 24h (p < 0.27). and 48h (< 0.001), had significantly less swelling (< 0.001) and trismus (< 0.001) and patients submitted to primary closure had a better evaluation of the Landry index (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Healing by second intention of the oblique relaxing incision by partial surgical wound closure, in our study, were superior to the primary closure in reduction of post-operative pain, swelling and trismus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials-ReBEC -UTN: RBR-5fxbqsf (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-5fxbqsf).

Efficacy of secondary vs primary closure techniques for the prevention of postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third molar extractions: A systematic review update and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether secondary closure (SC) or primary closure (PC) is better at preventing postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors sought randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of PC and SC on pain, swelling, trismus, infection, and bleeding after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted independently and in duplicate. The reviewers pooled results across studies using a random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

This review identified 785 unique citations and included 40 trials. Compared with PC, SC was found to have trivial benefits for pain at day 7 and trismus within 1 week (moderate certainty). The incidence of infection and bleeding did not differ importantly between techniques (moderate certainty). However, SC is probably associated with less swelling on day 1 (standardized mean difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.73; moderate certainty) and day 3 (standardized mean difference, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.59; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence for pain on days 1 and 3 and low certainty evidence for swelling on day 7.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians choosing between closure techniques should be aware that SC probably imparts an important benefit only for swelling at days 1 and 3. There seems to be a trivial difference between the techniques in other outcomes.

Single blind, randomized study comparing clinical equivalence of Trusilk® and Mersilk® silk sutures for mucosal closure following surgical removal of mesioangular impacted mandibular third molar

Background: Mesioangular impacted mandibular third molar is a common dental anomaly, for which surgical extraction is required. Post-surgery closure of mucosa reduces the prevalence of pain and other surgery-associated complications. We compared tissue reaction/inflammation after 3 and 7 days of mucosal closure with Trusilk® and Mersilk® silk sutures, following impacted mandibular third molar removal. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, randomized (1:1), single-blind study (July 2020-November 2021) included subjects (Trusilk®, n=65 and Mersilk®, n=64), requiring mucosal suturing following impacted mandibular third molar removal. The primary endpoint, incidence of pain, swelling and trismus at the extraction area on post-surgery day 3 and 7 was evaluated. The secondary endpoints, incidence of tissue reaction, wound infection, suture loosening, other complications, operative time, amount of anesthesia, intraoperative suture handling, time needed for complete wound healing and suture removal, and adverse events were also recorded. Results: Socio-demographic and intra-oral characteristics were comparable between the groups. In Trusilk® and Mersilk® groups, a gradually decreasing pain score, starting from day 0 post-surgery (42.17±22.38 vs. 45.97±22.20) to day 7 (8.40±11.93 vs. 8.28±12.13) to day 30 (1.98±0.89 vs. 1.75±0.76) was witnessed. After the surgery, 21.54% and 17.19% subjects in Trusilk® and Mersilk® groups, respectively, had no post-operative swelling, while at the last two visits none of the subjects had swelling. Non-significant difference in wound infection, suture loosening, wound healing, bleeding, taste changes, operative time, amount of anesthesia, intraoperative suture handling, and time needed for complete wound healing and suture removal was noted among the groups. No suture-related adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: The results indicated that the Trusilk® and Mersilk® silk sutures are clinically equivalent and can be used for mucosal closure after removal of an impacted mandibular third molar with a minimal rate of pain, swelling and trismus. Clinical Trial Registry of India Registration: CTRI/2020/03/024100 (20/03/2020)

[Prevention of inflammatory complications after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars]

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory complications are the most prevalent problems after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars. The main options for prevention are prophylactic antibiotics usage before surgery or in the postoperative period; a method of postoperative management of a tooth socket, implying healing by primary or secondary closure. Each of the postoperative management types has advantages and disadvantages.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare complete suturing versus iodoform gauze packing of tooth socket for prevention of inflammatory complications after mandibular third molar removal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed. The medical records of 273 patients who underwent mandibular third molar extraction for orthodontic indications were analyzed. Data of 100 patients were included, in 50 cases the postoperative management was carried out using iodoform packing, in other 50 cases complete suturing was performed. Depending on the type of data and distribution, we used the chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test. A p<0.05 was needed to achieve statistical significance.

RESULTS

Alveolitis developed in 8 % cases of iodoform gauze packing and 34% cases of suturing. The differences are statistically significant (p=0.003). The total rehabilitation period (days) in patients with no alveolitis using iodoform gauze packing was 8 (7; 31) (Me (Q1; Q3)), using complete socket suturing was 7 (7; 8) (Me (Q1; Q3)), the differences are statistically significant (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

The best option for the prophylaxis of alveolitis after surgical extraction of mandibular third molar is secondary closure using iodoform gauze packing. However, in the cases with no alveolitis when complete suturing was performed, healing occurred much faster, which justifies the development of an alternative method for third molar socket healing.

Current thinking in lower third molar surgery

The removal of lower third molar teeth is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide, but many concepts in this surgery have been unclear and have engendered different opinions. This paper aims to review current thinking in certain pertinent aspects of this surgery to update the reader on the most current research and synthesise it to make clinical recommendations. Topics covered include preoperative imaging, timing of removal, flap design, lingual retraction, coronectomy, lingual split, closure techniques, and use of antibiotics, steroids, and drains.

Evaluation of wound healing following surgical extractions using the IPR Scale

OBJECTIVE

To monitor wound healing following surgical extraction of wisdom teeth using the novel Inflammatory Proliferative Remodeling (IPR) Scale.

METHODS

A prospective study design was used. Participants included 94 otherwise healthy adult patients undergoing surgical extraction of a wisdom tooth at a tertiary medical centre from June 2018 to June 2019. The IPR Scale was completed by two resident surgeons in oral and maxillofacial surgery at three time points after the procedure, corresponding to the three phases of wound healing. Mean subscale and total scores were calculated. Patients graded their preoperative anxiety, intraoperative pain, and pain during follow-up on a 10 cm visual analog scale, and the findings were correlated with the IPR Scale scores.

RESULTS

Mean IPR total score (range 0-16) was excellent (14.43 ± 1.45). Mean scores by healing phase were as follows: inflammatory 6.35 ± 1.34 (range 0-8); proliferation, 4.56 ± 0.8 (range 0-5); remodeling, 2.83 ± 0.51 (range 0-3). There was a positive correlation between mean preoperative anxiety level (5.9 ± 3.6) and intraoperative pain perception (2.4 ± 2.4; P = 0.65) and a negative correlation between mean preoperative anxiety level and IPR Scale scores for each healing phase. Two cases were complicated by abscesses which resolved with treatment.

CONCLUSION

The IPR Scale is a promising tool for the effective evaluation of the wound healing process following wisdom tooth extractions. Relaxation methods and behavioural adaptation might help to lower patient anxiety and thereby improve oral wound healing.