Novel incision design and primary flap closure reduces the incidence of alveolar osteitis and infection in impacted mandibular third molar surgery

Removal of Horizontally Impacted Mandibular Third Molars Using the Three-Piece or T-Shaped Tooth Sectioning Method

BACKGROUND

The extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molars (HM3) can be a complicated surgery. Appropriate tooth sectioning methods can reduce the operation time and postoperative complications.

PURPOSE

The current study compares operative time and postoperative pain between HM3 removed using the three-piece or T-shaped tooth sectioning techniques.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

A randomized single-blind prospective clinical trial on HM3 extraction was carried out between June and December 2022 in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Southwest Medical University. Patients with local or systemic infection, poor oral hygiene, and systemic disease were excluded.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The predictor variable was the tooth sectioning method. The subjects were randomized to a three-piece or T-shaped group.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S)

The primary outcome variables were the operative time and postoperative pain measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcome variables were the rates of primary bleeding, mouth opening reduction, swelling, patient satisfaction measured using a VAS, and quality of life measured using a postoperative symptom severity scale.

COVARIATES

The covariates included age, sex, side and classification of HM3, and the relationship of HM3 to the inferior alveolar nerve canal.

ANALYSES

The data were analyzed using the independent samples t-test, paired t-test, χ2, and rank sum test. A significance level set at P < .05.

RESULTS

The sample included 60 patients in the three-piece group and 66 patients in the T-shaped group. The operative time of the three-piece group (14.73 ± 3.21 minutes) was shorter than that of the T-shaped group (19.25 ± 4.29 minutes) (P < .05). On days 3 and 7, VAS of pain were 2.24 ± 1.89 and 0.15 ± 0.40 in the three-piece group and 3.95 ± 2.44 and 0.48 ± 0.68 in the T-shaped group (P < .05). The VAS of patient satisfaction in the three-piece group (6.05 ± 1.29) was better than the T-shaped group (4.90 ± 1.05) on day 7 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The three-piece tooth sectioning for HM3 removal was associated with shorter duration, slighter postoperative symptoms, and higher patient satisfaction and may be considered as a recommended practice for dentists.

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.

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.

Aetiology, Prevention and Management of Alveolar Osteitis-A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use.

DESIGN

A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl.

CONCLUSIONS

Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.

Piezo-surgery technique and intramuscular dexamethasone injection to reduce postoperative pain after impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Surgical extraction of the impacted mandibular third molar is commonly associated with postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus. Usually, rotatory instruments like burs have been used for osteotomy, while Piezosurgery is an innovative technique introduced to overcome the weaknesses related to the conventional technique. In addition, Dexamethasone administration before the extraction of impacted third molars is an efficient way to reduce postoperative pain due to robust anti-inflammatory activity. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effect of piezo-surgery and dexamethasone injection on postoperative sequelae after the surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars, and ultimately to compare their effect on reducing postoperative pain.

Methods

A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted with a sample of 80 patients. Participants were divided into four groups: Group 1 (Conventional rotatory), Group 2 (Conventional rotatory with 8 mg dose of dexamethasone 30 min before surgery), Group 3 (Piezo-surgery), and Group 4 (Piezo-surgery with 8 mg dose of dexamethasone 30 min before surgery). The outcome variables were surgical working time calculated in minutes, maximal mouth opening measured in millimeters using Vernier Caliper at baseline and day 3 and postoperative pain assessed using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on days 1, 3, and 7.

Results

The surgical working time was longer in piezo-surgery groups compared with the conventional rotatory instruments groups (15.82 ± 3.47 vs 23.33 ± 2.54; p value < 0.0001). The lowest reduction in mouth opening between baseline and 3rd-day post-op was found in the Piezo-surgery with Dexamethasone group (mean difference = 5.0, SD = 3.9, p value < 0.0001) followed by the Piezosurgery without Dexamethasone group (mean difference = 5.8, SD = 4.5, p value < 0.0001) and the highest average was reported by the Conventional rotatory without Dexamethasone (mean difference = 9.7, SD = 4.5, p value < 0.0001. In the four groups, the mean pain score was highest on the 1st day and gradually decreased over the following days. Comparison of the 1st and 3rd postoperative pain between groups revealed a lowest mean pain score in the Piezo-surgery with Dexamethasone group, followed by Conventional rotatory with Dexamethasone group and a highest mean score in the Conventional rotatory without Dexamethasone group (p value < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The association of Piezosurgery osteotomy and Dexamethasone intramuscular injection could be an effective combination to reduce postoperative pain and trismus after impacted third molar surgery.

Trial registration: NCT04889781 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), Date of Registration: 17/05/2021 (retrospectively registered), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04889781?term=NCT04889781&draw=2&rank=1

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.

Modified envelope flap, a novel incision design, can relieve complications after extraction of fully horizontal impacted mandibular third molar

Background/purpose

Patients always suffer from dental extraction complications of fully horizontal impacted mandibular third molar, such as pain, swelling and limited mouth opening. A novel incision, modified envelope flap (MEF), was designed to alleviate the complications through minimizing the tissue injury during this surgery procedure.

Materials and methods

With indications of removing bilateral fully horizontal impacted mandibular the third molars, 40 patients were recruited and received dental extraction under incision with modified envelope flap (MEF) in one lateral and modified triangular flap (MTF) in the other lateral respectively. MEF incision was made along the buccal gingival sulcus from mesial to distal of the mandibular second molar with an extension to retromolar trigone at 45°inclination. As a control, traditional incision MTF was made starting with a vertical incision at the mesial buccal gingiva of the mandibular second molar with extension as MEF. Fully horizontal impacted mandibular third molar were extracted successfully. Surgery time and postoperative pain, swelling and mouth opening were recorded at day 1, 3, 7.

Results

There was no significant difference of the surgery time, pain, swelling (day 1) and mouth opening (day1) between MEF and MTF group (p > 0.05). However, the scores of swelling (day 3, 7) and mouth opening (day3, 7) of MEF group were much lower than that of MTF group (p < 0.05), indicating attenuated complications and quicker recovery.

Conclusion

With small injury, MEF hasn't prolong the surgery time but relieves complications after extraction of fully horizontal impacted mandibular third molar and might be a promising method compared with MTF.

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.

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.

Development of a New Index to Assess the Difficulty Level of Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars in an Asian Population

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop a straightforward and accurate index of impacted third molar removal difficulty through analyzing various factors to assess the difficulty level of impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 203 patients who required IMTM extraction. All patients were selected using the preset selection criteria. The present study assessed operation difficulty with operating time. A mathematical model and regression analysis were performed to explore 6 main factors (age, number of roots, degree of bone impaction, shape of roots, and impaction angle and its relation). Appropriate correction coefficients were obtained to formulate a new IMTM removal difficulty predictive index. Consistency of the κ value was checked to evaluate performance.

RESULTS

Degree of bone impaction had the highest correlation coefficient (0.576), followed by shape of roots (0.359), and the lowest correlation coefficient was for number of roots. The Pederson index for these 203 patients showed that 75, 76, and 52 patients had low, moderate, and high difficulty levels, respectively, whereas the new index categorized 78, 85, and 40 patients as having low, moderate, and high difficulty. Comparison of the Pederson index and new index with operating time showed κ agreements of 65.30 and 77.9% (P < .01), suggesting that the prediction results of the new index are more objective and accurate.

CONCLUSION

The newly proposed index is straightforward and efficient and exhibited promising results in κ agreement. Because of its straightforward nature, it is better suited for Chinese public hospitals with a large volume of patients who require alveolar surgery. The detection of predictor variables could be useful for graduate students, professionals, and general dental practitioners contemplating IMTM removal to assess the difficulty level of IMTM extraction.

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.