Does laterally rotated flap design influence the short-term periodontal status of second molars and postoperative discomfort after partially impacted third molar surgery?

Six-Month Soft Tissues Healing after Lower Third Molar Extraction: Comparison of Two Different Access Flaps

BACKGROUND

As specific flap designs performed for lower third molar extractions usually influence periodontal healing of the adjacent first and second molars, this study aimed to evaluate the periodontal conditions of these sites after 6 months post-surgery.

METHODS

Forty patients, aged 14-30 years, were included. Surgical extraction of the lower third molar was performed through a flap with papilla detachment (a modified envelope technique with detachment of gingival papilla between the first and second molars) or a trapezoidal flap (characterized by mesial- and distal-releasing incisions). Periodontal parameters at the first and second molar sites were assessed for visible plaque index, bleeding on probing, recession, probing pocket depth, and clinical attachment loss before surgery (T0), one month (T1), and six months after extraction (T2).

RESULTS

No statistical differences were found for the plaque and bleeding indexes between the two flaps at each observation time and considering both time intervals. For recession, no statistical differences were found between the two flaps considering the final time interval. For probing pocket depth at the second molar site, both techniques registered a significant increase between T0 and T1, followed by a decrease up to T2. For clinical attachment loss, mean values assessed for the first and second molar sites demonstrated evidently increased values between T0 and T1, followed by moderate decreases up to T2.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering short (T1) and mid-term (T2) follow-ups, a specific flap design does not seem to particularly influence periodontal healing six months after surgery.

Effects of collagen membrane on bone level and periodontal status of adjacent tooth after third molar surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The periodontal status and distal bone level of the adjacent second molar can be negatively affected by the surgical extraction of an impacted lower third molar. Absorbable materials have some benefits, including enhancing primary wound coverage and promoting wound healing through isolation, clotting, wound stabilization and haemostasis. This study set out to compare primary and secondary healing and collagen-membrane-based primary healing after surgical removal of partially erupted impacted third molars (3Ms), evaluating the distal alveolar bone level (ABL) and periodontal status of the adjacent second molars (2Ms).

METHODS

Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into three groups: secondary healing (n = 28), primary healing (n = 27) and membrane-based primary healing (n = 29). Digital panoramic radiographs were obtained preoperatively (T1) and three months postoperatively (T2). The distances between the cemento-enamel junctions and the alveolar bone crests on the distal aspects of the adjacent 2Ms were measured using calibrated radiograph measurement software. The pocket depth and plaque index measurements were performed preoperatively and three months postoperatively. The periodontal plaque index (PPI) scores were registered on the distal aspects of the 2Ms, and the mean values were used.

RESULTS

Three of the applied healing types positively affected periodontal pocket depth (PPD) and periodontal index values (p < 0.05). In terms of the ABL of the adjacent 2Ms, primary healing (p < 0.05) and membrane-based primary healing (p < 0.05) had superior results to secondary healing.

CONCLUSION

Membrane use is promising for the distal bone gain and periodontal status of the adjacent 2M.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical study was registered by the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, with the trial number ACTRN12618001551280.

Comparison between the Flapless Surgical Approach and a Novel Single Incision Access in Terms of Recovery Time and Comfort after Extraction of Impacted Inferior Third Molars: A Randomised, Blinded, Split-Mouth Controlled Clinical Trial

The recent attention to quality of life and oral health care procedures reflects a renewed 'patient-based' approach to dealing with non-life-threatening conditions. In the current study, we proposed a novel surgical approach to the extraction of impacted inferior third molars (iMs3) through a randomised, blinded, split-mouth controlled clinical trial following the CONSORT guidelines. The novel surgical procedure, hereinafter referred to as single incision access (SIA), will be compared with our previously described flapless surgical approach (FSA). The predictor variable was the novel SIA approach, involving access through a single incision without removal of soft tissue, on the impacted iMs3. The primary endpoint was the acceleration of the iMs3 extraction healing time. The secondary endpoints were the incidences of pain and oedema as well as gum health (pocket probing depth and attached gingiva). The study was carried out on 84 teeth of 42 patients with both iMs3 impacted. The cohort was composed of 42% Caucasian males and 58% Caucasian females, aged 23.8 ± 7.9 (17-49) years. We observed faster recovery/wound-healing on the SIA side (33.6 ± 4.3 days) than at the FSA side (42.1 ± 5.4 days; p < 0.05). The FSA approach confirmed the evidence previously detected concerning early post-surgery improvement in terms of attached gingiva and reduced oedema and pain, with respect to the traditional envelope flap. The novel SIA approach follows the early positive post-surgery FSA results.

Does surgical removal of mandibular third molar influence the periodontal status of the adjacent second molars? A systematic review

Objective: This study aimed to assess the influence of mandibular third molar surgical removal on the periodontal status of adjacent second molars and to investigate the potential impact of the flap design. Methods: A systematic review of the literature, registered in PROSPERO, has been carried out from Pubmed and Scopus databases following PRISMA guidelines from January 2010 to January 2022. PICO method was used to select the relevant articles. Studies comparing the periodontal status of the second molar before and after mandibular third molar removal were considered. Results: Twenty-three studies involving 1067 patients were included. The two main parameters studied were periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment level. The envelope flap and the triangular flap were the most commonly used flap techniques. Periodontal health of adjacent second molar was maintained or improved in most of the included studies. The flap design did not seem to have a significant influence either. Conclusion: Avulsion of impacted third molar in healthy young adults does not impair the periodontal health of adjacent second molars. Further studies, with higher levels of evidence, are needed to confirm these results and to identify possible risk factors (such as age, impaction depth or periodontal disease) responsible for poorer healing.

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.

Periodontal Healing after Lower Third Molars Extraction: A Clinical Evaluation of Different Flap Designs

Periodontal healing after third molars extraction seems to be influenced by the choice of different flap techniques. The purpose of the present study was to assess the clinical condition of adjacent first and second molar sites, after the extraction of lower third molars, performed through different flap designs. Eighty patients, aged between 14 and 30 years, were analyzed for periodontal parameters of VPI, PPD, and CAL, pre-operatively (T0), after 15 days (T1), after 1 month (T2), and after 2 months (T3) from extraction. Techniques performed were trapezoidal flap (TRAP), marginal flap (MARG), flap with papilla detachment (DETP), and flap with papilla decapitation (DEC). No significant differences were found between the four flaps at each observation time and considering the interval between T0 and T3, for VPI, PPD at first molar site, PPD at second molar site, and CAL at second molar site. Significant variations for CAL were registered, for each flap, between T0 and T3, in all cases for buccal site, in three cases for buccal-distal site. After 2 months of follow-up, no strong evidence can be assumed for or against the use of a particular flap design for the extraction of lower third molars.

Effects of Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction on Periodontal Tissue of the Adjacent Second Molar

The extraction of impacted lower third molars (ILTM) is one of the most common procedures in oral-maxillofacial surgery. Being adjacent to lower second molars, most impacted lower third molars often lead to distal periodontal defects of adjacent second molars. Several symptoms may occur after extraction, such as periodontal pocket formation, loss of attachment, alveolar bone loss and even looseness of second molar resulting in extraction. The distal periodontal defects of second molars are affected by many factors, including periodontal conditions, age, impacted type of third molars, and intraoperative operations. At present, several studies have suggested that dentists can reduce the risk of periodontal defects of the second molar after ILTM extraction through preoperative evaluation, reasonable selection of flap design, extraction instruments and suture type, and necessary postoperative interventions. This review summarizes the research progress on the influence factors, interventions methods and some limitations of distal periodontal defects of adjacent second molar after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars, with the aim of opening up future directions for studying effects of ILTM extraction on periodontal tissue of the adjacent second molar.

"Effects of flap modification on third molar extraction outcomes"-A randomised split mouth study

Aim

The main purpose of this experimental study was to compare whether modifications in flap design influence the post-operative outcome of third molar surgeries.

Materials and methods

This study was designed as a randomized, single-blinded,split-mouth cross-over comparative study. The predictor variables were the flap type; Conventional Ward's was used to expose the tooth with a difference in the anterior release incision between the groups.Oblique anterior releasing incision and vertical anterior releasing incisions were used for the control and study group respectively.The primary outcome variables were pain measured using VAS (Visual analogue scale), swelling in mm; mouth opening measured in mm, periodontal probing depth in a mm, wound healing by modified Landry's score and surgical accessibility. Statistical significance was set at 5% (α = 0.05).

Result

Twenty five patients with bilateral, mirror-image impacted mandibular third molars participated in the study.The study group was associated with moderate swelling that was not statistically significant. .The outcome variables i.e. pain, wound healing, mouth opening, and periodontal pocket depth had no statistical difference on comparing the two groups. In terms of accessibility, the control group was found to be better with the statistical significance of p = 0.00184.

Conclusion

Modifying conventional Ward's design influences the degree of swelling and surgical accessibility. Vertical anterior releasing incision in conventional Ward's has no advantage over conventional Ward's with oblique anterior releasing incision.

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.

The effect of triangular and reversed triangular flap designs to post third molar odontectomy complications (a pilot study)

Background

Odontectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Flap design influences the post operative complications. Triangular flap is the most widely used flap design but it has many shortages such as dehiscence, alveolar osteitis, reactionary bleeding, and periodontal disruption distal of second molar. The aim of this study is to introduce an alternative flap design in the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars – reversed triangular flap – and to compare this flap design with the triangular flap in case of dehiscence, reactionary bleeding, and clinical attachment loss.

Material and Methods

This prospective, split-mouth study involved 15 patients with bilateral partially impacted mandibular third molars with similar impaction classification. One impacted tooth was removed using a triangular flap and the other using a reversed triangular flap. Post operative complications such as dehiscence, reactionary bleeding, and clinical attachment loss were recorded 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days post odontectomy.

Results

Chi square test result shows that there were fewer incidences of dehiscence seven days post surgery using the reversed triangular flap (p=0.032). Mann Whitney-U test result shows that the reversed triangular flap exhibited less bleeding score on day 1 (p=0.002) and day 2 (p=0.035) post surgery. There were no statistically significant differences according to Mann Whitney-U test between the flap designs for the clinical attachment loss on distal of second molar on day 14 (p=0.512) and day 30 (p=0.902) post surgery.

Conclusions

The reversed triangular flap design is preferable to triangular flap for impacted third molar surgery, escpecially in terms of wound dehisence and reactionary bleeding.

Key words:Flap design, third molar impaction, odontectomy, post odontectomy complications.

Patient morbidity after impacted third molar extraction with different flap designs. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To review the literature on the effect of different surgical flaps upon patient morbidity (pain perception, trismus, swelling and osteitis) after impacted third molar extraction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic and complementary search of main databases and grey literature was performed up to January 2019 to retrieve randomized clinical trials. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used for methodological appraisal. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted of pain perception and trismus.

RESULTS

From the initially 1314 screened studies, only 11 were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in pain between the envelope and triangular flap designs over time, except on the sixth postoperative day, when the envelope flap proved more painful. Regarding trismus, statistically significant differences were observed on the seventh postoperative day, with greater mouth opening in the envelope flap group than in the triangular flap group. There were no clear differences in swelling and osteitis among the flap designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its limitations, the present meta-analysis found no clear differences in patient morbidity between the different flap designs.

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

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the triangular and envelope flaps in mandibular third molar surgery with regard to pain, oedema, and trismus. Secondary outcomes assessed were dehiscence, ecchymosis, alveolar osteitis, periodontal condition, and surgical time. The PRISMA guidelines and recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook were followed, and the review was registered before commencement (PROSPERO; CRD42018112373). The literature search was conducted in the Web of Science, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases and in the grey literature; randomized clinical trials, indexed through November 2018 were included. Three reviewers independently examined the studies. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 18 were included in the meta-analyses. The flap design did not influence pain, oedema, trismus, dehiscence, or osteitis. The triangular flap was associated with a greater occurrence of postoperative ecchymosis (odds ratio 4.58, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 15.91, I²=0) and lower periodontal probing depth on day 7 postoperative (standardized mean difference -1.36, 95% confidence interval -2.68 to -0.03, I²=88%) when compared to the envelope flap in mandibular third molar surgeries.

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Envelope and Triangular Flaps After Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of the present systematic review was to compare the postoperative outcomes between envelope and triangular flaps after mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the inception date to November 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials were included if they had met certain inclusion and exclusion criteria. The predictor variable was the flap design, envelope or triangular. The outcome variables were operation time, pain, trismus, alveolar osteitis (AO) incidence, wound dehiscence, and swelling. The methodologic quality assessment was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included for qualitative synthesis, 18 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The use of envelope flaps required less operation time than triangular flaps (P < .00001; I² = 9%). In the Pell and Gregory A and B subgroups, envelope flaps were associated with a significantly lower visual analog scale score at 3 (P = .05, I² = 0%) and 7 (P = .02; I² = 0%) postoperative days and with a greater postoperative interincisal distance at 7 postoperative days (P = .04; I² = 0%). In contrast, envelope flaps were associated with a greater AO incidence in the subgroup of split-mouth randomized controlled trials (P = .001; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Envelope flaps required a shorter operation time than triangular flaps and were associated with less postoperative pain and trismus when applied to impacted mandibular third molars of Pell and Gregory Class A or B. In contrast, triangular flaps were associated with a decreased incidence of AO compared with envelope flaps.

Efficacy of secondary closure technique after extraction of third molars: a meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of two suture methods on the postoperative complications of extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M). We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases until 18 May 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the influence of any suture techniques on postoperative complications after the removal of impacted M3M. Pain, facial swelling, and trismus were measured for both the early stage (2-3 days) and late stage (5-7 days) after extraction. We identified 655 records, of which five were assessed for eligibility. All trials included had a moderate risk of bias. The analysis showed that the patients whose wounds had been closed primarily had significantly more pain than those whose wounds were closed secondarily (a wedge of mucosa) during the early stage (standardised mean difference (SMD), -0.49; 95% CI -0.71 to -0.27; P<0.0001) and the late stage (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.19; P<0.0001) after the removal of impacted M3M. Patients whose wounds were closed secondarily had less swelling (mm) at the postoperative early stage (SMD -1.12; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.66; P<0.00001) and late stage (SMD -0.51; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.33; P<0.00001). There was more trismus in the primary closure group than in the secondary group during both stages. Our findings suggest that secondary closure causes less pain, facial swelling, and trismus in both early and late stages of surgical removal of impacted M3M, and therefore it improves the quality of life by reducing postoperative discomfort.

The influence of flap design on sequelae and quality of life following surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars: A split-mouth randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar is one of the most frequently performed interventions in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare two different flap designs in terms of sequelae and quality of life following surgical removal of impacted third molars.

METHODS

This prospective, randomised, split-mouth clinical study involved patients referred for surgical removal of bilateral symmetrical impacted mandibular third molars. Envelope flap and modified triangular flap techniques were used. The effects of flap design on trismus, swelling, wound dehiscence, alveolar osteitis, haematoma, infection and quality of life were evaluated on post-operative days 3 and 7. Pain levels were assessed on post-operative days 1, 3 and 7.

RESULTS

Significant differences were determined between the two groups in terms of trismus, pain and wound dehiscence scores on post-operative day 3. However, on post-operative day 7, this difference was observed only in trismus. Statistically significant differences were also determined between the two groups on post-operative day 3 for social isolation and eating subscale scores as well as total quality of life score.

CONCLUSION

Based on the study findings, the modified triangular flap may be superior to the envelope flap in terms of pain, trismus, and wound dehiscence in the first 3 days after impacted third molar surgery and may have a better impact on quality of life during this process.

Is Horizontal Mattress Suturing More Effective Than Simple Interrupted Suturing on Postoperative Complications and Primary Wound Healing After Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery?

The aim of this clinical study was to compare the influence of 2 different suturing techniques on postoperative complications and wound healing after surgical extractions of impacted mandibular third molars. In this randomized split mouth study, 30 patients were examined in whom 60 consecutive surgical extractions of symmetrically positioned impacted mandibular third molars were performed. After the extractions, the surgical flaps were sutured with either the simple interrupted or horizontal mattress suturing technique. Postoperative swelling and trismus were recorded on the 2nd, 7th, and 10th days. Pain was recorded in a 7-day diary and wound dehiscence was recorded on the10th postoperative day. Statistical evaluation of data was made using Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson correlation. There were no statistical differences between the 2 suturing techniques in terms of postoperative pain, trismus, and swelling (P > 0.05). There was significantly less wound dehiscence in the horizontal mattress suturing group than in the simple interrupted suturing group (P: 0017). According to the results of this study, the horizontal mattress suturing technique is more effective than the simple interrupted suturing technique on wound healing after impacted mandibular third molar surgery, although it does not decrease the levels of pain, trismus, and swelling.

How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study

Background

Collagen membranes have some benefits include promoting wound healing through isolation, clot stabilization, wound stability, and hemostasis, enhancing primary wound coverage through its chemotactic ability to attract fibroblasts, and augmenting flap thickness by providing a collagenous scaffold. The purpose of this study was to compare primary and secondary healing and collagen membrane-based primary healing after surgical removal of partial impacted mandibular third molars, evaluating the incidence of postoperative complications and analyzing the swelling, mouth opening, and pain.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: the SC (Secondary closure) group, the PC (Primary closure) group, and the MBPC (membrane based primary closure) group. Data were collected on pain, mouth opening, swelling, and complications experienced by the patients.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the pain (p > 0.05), relatively. The swelling recorded on postoperative days 2 and 7 was lower in the SC group than in the PC (p = 0.046 and 0.00) and in MBPC (p = 0.005 and 0.002) groups, respectively. Mouth opening showed a statistically significant difference between the three groups at day 2 (p = 0.00). Wound dehiscence was shown in 6 patients in the PC (20%) group and 2 patients in the MBPC (6.7%) group. Dry socket was observed 3 patients in the SC group (10%), 2 patients in the PC group (6.7%), and no dry socket in the MBPC group. No cases of infection or postoperative bleeding were encountered.

Conclusions

The secondary closure provides a marked advantage over the primary closure in terms of swelling and mouth opening. However, the absence of alveolitis in the primary closure using the collagen membrane and minimal wound dehiscence, suggests that membrane use may support primary healing in terms of wound healing.

Does additional cone beam computed tomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery?Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury?

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of additional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging on decreasing the risk of inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury during third molar removal in patients at high risk and to assess the surgical outcomes. The study sample included patients considered at high risk for IAN injury based on panoramic radiography (PAN) evaluation. The primary predictor was the type of imaging method (PAN only or with additional CBCT). The other variables were demographic and anatomical/radiographic factors. The primary outcome variable was IAN injury. The secondary outcome variables were the preoperative surgical plan and surgical results including IAN exposure and duration of surgery. The sample comprised 122 patients (139 teeth) aged 18-48 years. Postoperative temporary IAN injury was present in three (4.2%) cases in the CBCT group and 11 (16.4%) in the PAN group at 7 days after surgery. However, none of the patients had a permanent IAN injury at the 6-month follow-up. Additional CBCT imaging was not superior to PAN in reducing IAN injury after third molar surgery during long-term follow-up. Nonetheless, CBCT may decrease the prevalence of temporary IAN injury and improve the surgical outcomes in high-risk patients.

Effect of flap design on periodontal healing after impacted third molar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The extraction of an impacted third molar violates the surrounding soft and bony tissues. The surgeon's access to the tooth, for which there are various surgical approaches, has an important impact on the periodontium of the adjacent second molar. The aim of this review was to analyze the relationships between the different flap techniques and postoperative periodontal outcomes for the mandibular second molars (LM2) adjacent to the impacted mandibular third molars (LM3). An electronic search of MEDLINE and other databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials fulfilling the eligibility criteria. To assess the impact of flap design on the periodontal condition, the weighted mean difference of the probing depth reduction (WDPDR) and the weighted mean difference of the clinical attachment level gain (WDCAG) at the distal surface of LM2 were used as the primary outcomes. The results showed that, overall, the different flap techniques had no significant impact on the probing depth reduction (WDPDR -0.14mm, 95% confidence interval -0.44 to 0.17), or on the clinical attachment level gain (WDCAG 0.05mm, 95% confidence interval -0.84 to 0.94). However, a subgroup analysis revealed that the Szmyd and paramarginal flap designs may be the most effective in reducing the probing depth in impacted LM3 extraction, and the envelope flap may be the least effective.

Lingual Based Four Cornered Flap for Third Molar Surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective randomized clinical study was to compare the efficacy of lingual based four cornered flap with the commonly used triangular flap for impacted third molar surgery.

METHODS

Ten patients with bilateral impacted third molars were randomly treated under local anaesthesia, one side with triangular flap and single layer closure (with 3-0 silk) and other side by raising lingual based four cornered flap and double layer closure, subcutaneously with 5-0 vicryl and mucosa with 3-0 silk. All patients were operated by single surgeon (A. Rai) and suture removal was done after 7 days.

RESULTS

Healing by primary intension takes place when lingual flap and double layer suturing was done, also the patients had less pain, swelling and alveolar osteitis. The visibility was excellent with lingual flap and pocket formation distal to second molar was also less. The only drawback with lingual flap is that it required little less time in comparison to triangular flap.

CONCLUSION

The lingual based four cornered flap is better than the triangular flap.