Envelope or triangular flap for surgical removal of third molars? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of suture and sutureless techniques on postoperative complications after third molar surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare, among patients undergoing third molar surgeries, whether the use or omission of sutures improves postoperative clinical parameters.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials in humans. The steps of this review were conducted following the PRISMA protocol. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the revised Cochrane tool (RoB 2). The RevMan software was employed for meta-analyses, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

RESULT

A total of seven articles were included in the systematic review; however, only one article quantitatively measured bleeding, rendering meta-analysis for this outcome unfeasible. The group of patients in whom sutures were not used presented lower pain and edema on the first day (respectively: MD - 1.08; 95% CI - 1.35 to - 0.81; MD - 1.23; 95% CI - 2.34 to - 0.11) and second day (respectively: MD - 0.50; 95% CI - 0.83 to - 0.17; MD - 10.66; 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.16) postoperatively, compared to the group where sutures were employed. The group of patients who received sutures exhibited increased trismus on the first day postoperatively (MD 1.04; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41).

CONCLUSION

The omission of postoperative sutures in third molar surgeries appears to favor pain and edema outcomes within the first 24 h after the procedure, as well as trismus within the same timeframe.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Despite the suture being the standard conduct in tooth extractions. The omission of sutures in third molar extractions may favor inflammatory outcomes of pain, edema, and trismus in the immediate postoperative period.

Influence of Surgical Technique on Post-Operative Complications in the Extraction of the Lower Third Molar: A Retrospective Study

The surgical extraction of the impacted third molar is frequently associated with several complications. The purpose of this study is to assess how two different surgical protocols affect post-operative complications during the extraction of the lower impacted third molars. In order to compare and evaluate two different techniques (triangular flap vs. envelope flap), and the relative post-extraction complications, two groups of 150 patients each underwent to surgical impacted third molar extraction and 60 days of follow-up. The complication rate in the two groups was 14.00% in group A and 17.33% in group B. There was a strong association between smoking (OR: 2.8) and the use of oral contraceptives (OR: 1.75) with complications. The age- and sex-related incidence of complications in hard tissue healing has great variability in the literature; the analysis performed on our data did not show a statistically significant association between them. Even though related to a higher incidence of transient changes in sensitivity, it was found that the envelope flap saw a lower percentage of complications. There is still no clarity on which is the best protocol for the extraction of the lower impacted third molar, and the choice often depends on the surgeon's experience.

The influence of flap design on patients' experiencing pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar surgery: a scoping systematic review

Third molar removal surgery usually comes accompanied by postoperative discomfort, which could be influenced by the surgical approach chosen. This scoping systematic review aimed at compiling the available evidence focused on the influence of flap design, including envelope flap (EF), triangular flap (TF), and modified triangular flap (MTF), on postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus, as primary outcome measures, and any result mentioning healing promotion or delay, as secondary outcome measure, after mandibular third molar extraction surgery. An electronic search, complemented by a manual search, of articles published from 1999 to 2020 was conducted in the Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Web of Science databases including human randomized controlled trials, prospective, and retrospective studies with at least 15 patients. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed either with the Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool or with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Every step of the review was performed independently and in duplicate. The initial electronic search recovered 2102 articles. After applying the inclusion criteria, 12 articles were included. For patient’s perceived postoperative pain, TF and MTF frequently reported better results than EF. For swelling, the literature is divided, despite a trend favoring EF. For trismus, data showed that its occurrence is mostly associated with the duration of the surgery rather than with the chosen flap. For healing, the limited data is inconclusive. Finally, randomized studies showed a high risk of bias, whereas nonrandomized studies were mostly of good quality and low risk of bias. Although there was no clear consensus regarding the influence of different flap designs for third mandibular molar extraction on postoperative clinical morbidities; the surgeon’s experience, estimated surgical difficulty, molar position and orientation, and surg ery duration should be considered when choosing among the different flap designs.

Does the Lingual-Based Mucoperiosteal Flap Reduce Postoperative Morbidity Compared With the Buccal-Based Mucoperiosteal Flap After the Surgical Removal of Impacted Third Molars? A Meta-analysis Review

PURPOSE

The lingual-based mucoperiosteal flap, a novel flap, was unclear about the effects on the prognosis of surgery for impacted mandibular third molars. This study aimed to compare the lingual- and buccal-based mucoperiosteal flaps with respect to postoperative responses and complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review with a meta-analysis was designed and the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases and Google Scholar from January 1, 2000 to April 30, 2020 were searched for randomized clinical trials. The predictor variable was buccal- or lingual-based flap in the surgery, and the outcome variables were pain, swelling, trismus, operative time, and wound dehiscence. Other study variables were sex and retention depth of impacted teeth. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. Mean differences or standardized mean differences and risk ratios were computed to assess associations between 2 variables, where statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Seven publications met the inclusion criteria, contributing 370 subjects who had 590 teeth removed to sample. The lingual-based flap failed to significantly reduce postoperative discomfort. However, subgroup analysis revealed that subjects who underwent comma flap (a type of lingual-based flap) surgeries complained of milder pain than those who underwent buccal-based flap surgeries on day 1 (mean difference = -1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.53, -0.83], P < .001) and day 7 (mean difference = -1.80, 95% CI [-2.13, -1.48], P < .001) after surgery. Significant differences were also observed on days 1, 3, and 7 regarding postoperative swelling and trismus (P < .01). In addition, the lingual-based flap was reported to cause a significantly lower rate of wound dehiscence (relative risk = 0.46, 95% CI [0.30, 0.69], P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The lingual-based flap was associated with better primary wound closure in third molar removal. The comma flap, as a subtype, was preferable for relieving postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus over the buccal-based flap.

Five-Years Periodontal Outcomes of Early Removal of Unerupted Third Molars Referred for Orthodontic Purposes

PURPOSE

The removal of third molars (M3) is one of the most common oral-maxillofacial surgical procedures affecting periodontal tissues of neighboring second molars (M2). The aim of this study was to evaluate the periodontal status of lower M2 following the removal of unerupted lower M3 up to 5 years after removal.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Primary predictor variable in this prospective cohort-study was time [baseline (BL; preoperatively), 6 and 60 months postoperatively]. The primary outcome variable was probing pocket depth (PPD). Clinical attachment level (CAL) was defined as a secondary outcome variable. Plaque index (PlI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed descriptively. All variables were compared using nonparametric tests. M3 were classified as either completely bony or partially bony unerupted. Risk factors (removed M3, type of impaction, mean BL PPD≥4 mm, gender, age) were analyzed (repeated measures ANCOVA). The significance level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

From originally 91 subjects enrolled in this study, 39 subjects (22 females; mean age: 21.6 ± 2.5 years) contributing 39 M3 completed the study after 5 years. Average BL PPD significantly decreased at 6 (-0.50 ± 0.61 mm, P = .001), 60 months (-0.81 ± 0.56, P < .0001), as well as between 6 and 60 months (-0.31 ± 0.51 mm, P = .030). Corresponding CAL values decreased accordingly (BL-6 months: -0.37 ± 0.59 mm, P = .004; BL-60 months: -0.67 ± 0.55 mm, P < .0001; 6 to 60 months: -0.34 ± 0.48 mm, P = .004). The was confirmed as risk factor for PPD (P = .026) and CAL (P = .042) changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Average PPD and CAL of mandibular M2 in young subjects improved 5 years after early removal of unerupted M3 in favor of an initial partially bony unerupted type of impaction.