To compare standard incision and comma shaped incision and its influence on post-operative complications in surgical removal of impacted third molars

Alveolar ridge preservation in post-extraction sockets using concentrated growth factors: a split-mouth, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Aim

The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the impact of autologous concentrated growth factor (CGF) as a socket-filling material and its ridge preservation properties following the lower third molar extraction.

Materials and methods

A total of 60 sides of 30 participants who had completely symmetrical bilateral impacted lower third molars were enrolled. The primary outcome variables of the study were bone height and width, bone density, and socket surface area in the coronal section. Cone beam computed tomography images were obtained immediately after surgery and three months after surgery as a temporal measure. Follow-up data were compared to the baseline using paired and unpaired t-tests.

Results

CGF sites had higher values in height and width when compared to control sites (Buccal wall 32.9 ± 3.5 vs 29.4 ± 4.3 mm, Lingual wall 25.4 ± 3.5 vs 23.1 ± 4 mm, and Alveolar bone width 21.07 ± 1.55vs19.53 ± 1.90 mm, respectively). Bone density showed significantly higher values in CGF sites than in control sites (Coronal half 200 ± 127.3 vs -84.1 ± 121.3 and Apical half 406.5 ± 103 vs 64.2 ± 158.6, respectively). There was a significant difference between both sites in the reduction of the periodontal pockets.

Conclusion

CGF application following surgical extraction provides an easy, low-cost, and efficient option for alveolar ridge preservation. Thus, the use of CGF by dentists during dental extractions may be encouraged, particularly when alveolar ridge preservation is required.

Clinical trial registration

TCTR identification, TCTR20221028003.

Conventional Rotary Technique and Piezosurgical Technique in the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar: A Comparative Study

AIM

To compare the operating time, postoperative pain, edema, trismus, and patient acceptance following surgical removal of impacted third molar using piezosurgery and conventional rotary technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

About 42 patients with impacted mesioangular mandibular third molars were included in this study. Subjects are divided into two groups: group I (treated with conventional rotary technique) and group II (treated with piezosurgery). Duration of surgery, pain, trismus, and swelling were assessed. The patients were evaluated on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain, trismus, and edema were reduced with piezosurgery compared with conventional technique. Even though the duration of time was longer with piezosurgery, patient comfort was found to be better.

CONCLUSION

Piezosurgery is a meticulous and innovative ultrasonic technique with selective bone cutting and better postoperative outcomes. However, it is expensive, and the operating time is prolonged.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Piezosurgery is an alternative in the surgical removal of third molars as it ensures precise and selective cutting, with no injury to the surrounding soft tissues. Postoperative outcome and patient acceptance are improved with piezosurgery.

A Comparison Between Comma Incision and Ward's Incision in Third Molar Extraction in Terms of Postoperative Sequel

Aim We aim to look at the differences between the standard Ward's incision and the comma-shaped incision and how they affect complications after surgery to remove an impacted mandibular third molar. Materials and methods Mandibular third molars had to be carefully extracted from a total of 40 patients who were randomly divided into two groups of 20 patients each. At first, patients were evaluated before surgery. In group A, a standard Ward's incision was made, and in group B, a comma incision was made to match the mucoperiosteal fold. Afterward, the impacted third molars were carefully removed. The evaluation criteria for pain, swelling, lockjaw, and healing of wounds were done before surgery, after three hours, and on the first, third, and seventh day after surgery. Result The pain scores that were recorded right after surgery, three hours later, and on days 1, 3, and 7 in the surgical area with comma-shaped incision were all lower than the pain scores that were recorded in the area where standard incisions were made. Enlarging was less with comma entry point than with standard Ward's incision. After surgery, there was a big difference between the two entry points in how the mouth opened and how the wounds were fixed. These findings showed that the comma incision is better than the standard Ward's incision when it comes to pain, enlargement, lockjaw, and healing of wounds. Conclusion The study results showed that the comma-shaped incision was better than the traditional method (Ward's incision) because there were fewer problems after surgery.

Distal-triangular flap design for impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This prospective study was performed to evaluate whether the distal-triangular flap was a practical alternative surgical approach for extracting mandibular third molars.

METHODS

Sixty participants with impacted mandibular third molars were randomly divided into three groups: group A, distal-triangular flap; group B, Szmyd flap; and group C, envelope flap. The impacted third molars were extracted by the corresponding flapping method. During a three-month follow-up observation after the extraction, the postoperative pain, swelling, mouth opening, and periodontal status were recorded and analyzed by ANOVA and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

The 60 participants had successful extraction and 3-month follow-up observation. No participant suffered from postoperative infections, lower lip disorder, or tongue sensory disorders. No statistical differences were found in the postoperative symptoms and signs of the three flap designs, such as postoperative pain, swelling, mouth opening, and periodontal status (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The distal-triangular flap was as safe and reliable as the Szmyd and envelope flaps but more advantageous because of its convenient operative field exposure and low requirement for the patient's mouth opening. Thus, the distal-triangular flap is one of the alternative flap options for extracting impacted mandibular third molars.

Effect of lingual-based flap design on postoperative pain of impacted mandibular third molar surgery: Split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Background

The extraction of third molars is one of the most common procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. Surgical extraction involves the manipulation of both soft and hard tissues, so the patient usually experiences pain, swelling, and trismus in the immediate post-operative period. Several studies have been conducted using different types of surgical flaps to provide access with the least possible damage of soft tissues. Designing and implementing an optimum flap, which provides easier technique, better visibility, minimal post-operative complications, and best healing, is an aspired goal of every oral surgeon. This study aimed to compare lingual-based four-cornered flap with conventional triangular flap, and to evaluate its effect on post-operative pain after surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars.

Material and Methods

Seventeen patients (age ranged from 19 to 26 years) with bilateral, symmetrical impacted lower third molars (n=34) were included in the study. This was a randomized clinical trial with a split-mouth design. The impacted molars were assigned randomly, by coin flipping, to two groups: Case side with lingual-based four-cornered flap (Group A), and control side with conventional triangular flap (Group B). Away from the incision, the prognosis, surgical intervention, and postoperative procedures were exactly the same for the two groups. Postsurgical pain was assessed for 5 days using visual analogue scale (VAS) and by recording patients need for analgesics on a daily basis. Patients were also evaluated via a self-reporting questionnaire, i.e. Postoperative Symptoms Severity (PoSSe) scale, administered on the seventh postoperative day.

Results

Pain scores recorded in Group A were found to be significantly lower as compared to pain scores in Group B in the 5 postoperative days (P<0.05). Total analgesic intake in Group B was significantly higher (P<0.05). PoSSe scores were lower in Group A, however, this difference was insignificant (P>0.05).

Conclusions

According to the data of the current study and within its limits, it appeared that lingual-based four-cornered flap design was superior to the conventional triangular flap regarding the postsurgical discomfort and pain.

Key words:Impaction, third molar surgery, flap design, pain, PoSSe scale, split-mouth, RCT.

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 flap design and duration of surgery on acute postoperative symptoms and signs after extraction of lower third molars: A randomized prospective study

Background. Different surgical variables are assumed to play a role in postoperative course after lower third molar extraction. The aim of study was to assess whether flap design and duration of surgery can influence acute postoperative symptoms and signs after lower third molar extraction.

Methods. Twenty-five patients scheduled for lower third molar extraction were included in this study and randomly assigned to two groups in terms of flap design: group A (envelope flap) and group B (triangular flap). Swelling and trismus were assessed before and after surgery on days 0, 2 and 7. Pain was assessed for seven days after surgery. Maximum postoperative pain was chosen as the main outcome variable. ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups regarding maximum postoperative pain, trismus and swelling at 2- and 7-day intervals. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess correlation between duration of surgery and postoperative symptoms and signs.

Results. No significant difference was found between the two flap designs for any postoperative symptoms and signs. The duration of surgery was found to be correlated with both trismus (r = -0.44, P = 0.04) and swelling (r = 0.59, P = 0.004) as assessed 2 days after surgery. No associations were found between duration of surgery and maximum postoperative pain and trismus and swelling at 7-day interval.

Conclusion. Within the limits of the present study, the duration of surgery, and not the flap design, affected the acute postoperative symptoms and signs after lower third molar extraction.

Involvement of TRPV1 and TRPA1 in incisional intraoral and extraoral pain

Thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity in the injured region is a common complication. Although it is well known clinically that thermal and mechanical sensitivity of the oral mucosa is different from that of the skin, the mechanisms underlying injured pain of the oral mucosa remain poorly understood. The transient receptor potential (TRP) vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) and TRP ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) in primary afferent neurons are known to contribute to pathological pain. Therefore, we investigated whether TRPV1 and/or TRPA1 contribute to thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity following oral mucosa or whisker pad skin incision. Strong heat and mechanical and cold hypersensitivity was caused in the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin following incisions. On day 3 after the incisions, the number of TRPV1-immunoreactive (IR) and TRPA1-IR trigeminal ganglion (TG) neurons innervating the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin was significantly increased, and the number of TRPV1/TRPA1-IR TG neurons innervating whisker pad skin, but not the buccal mucosa, was significantly increased. Administration of the TRPV1 antagonist, SB366791, to the incised site produced a significant suppression of heat hyperalgesia in both the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin, as well as mechanical allodynia in the whisker pad skin. Administration of the TRPA1 antagonist, HC-030031, to the incised site suppressed mechanical allodynia and cold hyperalgesia in both the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin, as well as heat hyperalgesia in the whisker pad skin. These findings indicate that altered expressions of TRPV1 and TRPA1 in TG neurons are involved in thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity following the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin incision. Moreover, diverse changes in the number of TRPV1 and TRPA1 coexpressed TG neurons in whisker pad skin-incised rats may contribute to the intracellular interactions of TRPV1 and TRPA1 associated with whisker pad skin incision, whereas TRPV1 and TRPA1 expression in individual TG neurons is involved in buccal mucosa-incised pain.

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

The surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is one of the most common operations undertaken in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The most common indication for surgery is infection about a partially erupted tooth that is impacted against bone or soft tissues. Other indications include unrestorable caries, pulpal and periapical pathology, fracture of the tooth and cyst development, amongst others. Most commonly the benefits of surgical removal of a wisdom tooth include alleviation of the symptoms and signs of pericoronitis and its potential consequences. However, surgery is frequently associated with postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less commonly complications include infection, including dry socket, trigeminal nerve injuries and rarely fracture of the mandible.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for undertaking various aspects or stages of the surgical extraction of mandibular wisdom teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 21 March 2014), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 21 March 2014) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 21 March 2014). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing surgical techniques for removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted assessment of relevance, risk of bias and data extraction. Study authors were contacted for additional information. RRs were used for dichotomous data and MDs for continuous data, unless the event rate was very low and Peto ORs were used. The pairing of the split-mouth studies was taken into account in the analysis for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes, and parallel group and split-mouth studies were combined using the generic inverse variance method. Random-effects models were used provided there were more than three studies (fixed-effect models otherwise).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 35 trials (2569 patients) were included. The interventions under consideration fell into seven broad categories, with many comparisons including only a small number of trials. Twenty-one of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, the remaining 14 as unclear. The results are described in the summary of findings tables.Triangular flaps were associated with a 71% reduction in alveolar osteitis at one week (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78; three trials, moderate quality) and reduction in pain at 24 hours (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10; two trials, moderate quality) compared with envelope flaps. There was no evidence of a difference in overall infection rates, in maximum mouth opening or in permanent sensation. However, there was some evidence that residual swelling after one week was slightly increased in the triangular flap groups compared to envelope flap types (MD 0.66 mm, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07; two trials, low quality). We found no data on temporary sensation, or adverse events.There was low quality evidence from two studies, looking at the use of a retractor during third molar surgery, to indicate more cases of temporary altered sensation (up to one month) when a retractor was used (Peto OR 5.19, 95% CI 1.38 to 19.49; two trials, low quality). One study reported that this did not persist for more than six months in either group. We found no data for use of a retractor on other primary outcomes or adverse effects (including fracture of the mandible).Due to the small number of studies, the different comparisons evaluated, the variable outcomes reported and the paucity of useful data for all primary outcomes we were not able to draw any conclusions concerning bone removal in third molar surgery.There was insufficient evidence from single studies of very low quality on irrigation method (manual versus mechanical) or irrigation volume (low or high) to determine whether there were differences or not for the outcomes of alveolar osteitis or postoperative infection. We found no data for any of the other primary outcomes.There was insufficient evidence (low to very low quality) that any wound closure technique (primary versus secondary) was superior to another for the outcomes of alveolar osteitis, postoperative infection or maximum mouth opening achieved after seven days, or reactionary bleeding. There was evidence that secondary wound closure was associated with reduced pain at 24 hours (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24; four trials, moderate quality) and slightly reduced swelling after one week (MD 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.57; seven trials, moderate quality).We found no data on other primary outcomes.There was some evidence that the use of a surgical drain was associated with less postoperative swelling (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.19; five trials, moderate quality) and greater maximum mouth opening one week after surgery (MD 3.72 mm, 95% CI 2.84 to 4.59; two trials, moderate quality). There was insufficient evidence from a single study (low quality) to determine whether the presence of a drain made any difference to pain at 24 hours postoperation. There were no data for the other primary outcomes.Although two RCTs compared coronectomy with complete extraction, flaws in the design and the unit of analysis of these studies meant that there were no reliable data available for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The thirty-five included trials looked at a range of different surgical techniques. The comparisons related to seven broad aspects of the surgical procedures for impacted mandibular third molars: type of surgical flap raised, use of retractors, techniques for bone removal, wound irrigation, wound closure, wound drainage, and complete/incomplete tooth removal. The quality of the body of evidence for each of these comparisons was very low to moderate due to the small number of trials and patients, and the majority of the trials being at high risk of bias (65%) with the remainder at unclear risk of bias.The evidence for making changes to surgical practice is therefore limited. However, it is useful to describe the state of the research evidence supporting practice so that surgeons can make an informed choice in adopting new techniques, or continuing with established techniques.