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

Effect of a Thermosensitive Hydroxybutyl Chitosan Hydrogel on Postoperative Sequalae and Quality of Life After Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extraction

BACKGROUND

Third molar (M3) extraction is a common surgery in oral and maxillofacial surgery, and composite wound dressings such as hydroxybutyl chitosan (HBC) may improve postoperative sequala following M3 removal.

PURPOSE

The study purpose was to measure and compare differences in pain, swelling, trismus, wound healing, and quality of life (QOL) between the HBC and the control sides in patients undergoing M3 removal.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

This study is a double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Patients who required M3 removal between June 2022 and May 2023 were included. Exclusion criteria included seafood allergies, smoking, poor oral hygiene, and systemic diseases.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

The predictor variable was the socket treatment technique. Subjects were randomly assigned to the HBC or control (physiological saline) side.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

The primary outcome variables, including pain assessed by visual analog scale, swelling, and maximal incisional opening, were measured on the first, third, and seventh postoperative days. The secondary outcome variables included QOL and wound healing score measured on the third and seventh days after surgery.

COVARIATES

The covariates included age, sex, and operation time.

ANALYSES

The Shapiro‒Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the data distribution. The paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was adopted. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

The study included 60 patients (mean age: 25.81 ± 4.91; 23 (38%) males, 37 (62%) females). A statistically significant difference in the level of pain (HBC: 37.58 ± 4.39 mm, control: 47.00 ± 4.33 mm, day 1, P < .001; 21.88 ± 3.25 mm, 35.95 ± 1.57 mm, day 3, P < .001), maximal incisional opening (23.92 ± 1.38 mm, 18.22 ± 1.82 mm, day 1, P < .001; 30.00 ± 1.61 mm, 23.78 ± 1.70 mm, day 3, P < .001), and swelling (6.86 ± 0.70 mm, 7.15 ± 0.80 mm, day 3, P = .006) was detected after surgery. A statistically significant difference in QOL was detected (HBC: 13.70 ± 1.65, control: 18.60 ± 2.14, day 3, P < .001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The application of HBC hydrogels to wounds after impacted mandibular M3 extraction reduces postoperative sequalae, promotes wound healing and improves postoperative QOL.

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.

Preemptive Oral Etoricoxib on Health-Related Quality of Life after Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

This study was aimed at evaluating the use of oral etoricoxib for preemptive analgesia on the health-related quality of life (QoL) outcome after the extraction of mandibular third molar. The study population consisted of 60 participants that required extraction of a single partial bony impacted mandibular third molar under local anesthesia and met the inclusion criteria. The participants were randomized into two groups. The etoricoxib group orally received 60 mg etoricoxib 30 min before surgery, whereas the control group was given a placebo. The patients were assessed postoperatively after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 days using the United Kingdom oral health-related QoL questionnaire and visual analog scale for maximum postoperative pain. The total dose of ibuprofen rescue intake and total number of days the drug was taken were recorded. Surgical removal of impacted teeth had a negative influence on the patient's QoL across various physical, social, and psychological aspects. The scores for postoperative pain in the etoricoxib group were significantly lower than those in the control group on each postoperative observation day. The number of patients without analgesic rescue medication, the average amount, and total number of days emergency analgesics were taken were significantly lower in the etoricoxib group than in the control group. The etoricoxib group showed better QoL score than the control group. Preemptive oral etoricoxib is an effective therapeutic strategy for improving the QoL after surgical removal of the impacted lower third molar.

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.

Effect of drain application on postoperative complaints after surgical removal of impacted wisdom teeth-a randomized observer-blinded split-mouth clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized observer-blinded split-mouth-study is to objectively assess the influence of a rubber drain on postoperative swelling using 3D face scans as measurement method and additionally evaluate pain, trismus and complications after the osteotomy of lower third molars.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventy-two patients with symmetrically impacted lower wisdom teeth were recruited. Before the operation, patients rated pain using the visual analogue scale, the interincisal distance was measured, and 3D face scans were taken with an optical scanner. Each patient underwent two procedures which were at least 30 days apart. On one side, a rubber drain was inserted randomly before closure, the contralateral control side was closed without drainage. On the third and tenth postoperative day, face scans to quantify the swelling, pain evaluation and trismus measurements were performed. Due to loss of follow-up, 32 patients were excluded which resulted in 40 out of 72 patients remaining in the study.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in using a drain on swelling and trismus on the third and tenth day (p > 0.05). Pain was slightly worse on the third day on the treatment side, but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). We observed no differences in the number of wound infections.

CONCLUSIONS

The insertion of a rubber drain does not have any influence on swelling, pain or trismus and has no impact on the number of wound infections.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of a rubber drain cannot be recommended as no reduction of postoperative discomfort was detected.