Author:
Sol Izabella,Tonini Karen Rawen,dos Reis Karen Santin,Hadad Henrique,Ponzoni Daniela
Abstract
AbstractThe aim of this split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes (operative time, edema, trismus, and pain), the immediate histological effects, the alveolar repair (2 and 4 months), and the quality of life after the extraction of impacted third molars using high-speed pneumatic and electrical rotation. Sixteen patients underwent extraction of the two mandibular third molars with a minimum interval of 15 days. On one side of the participant’s mouth, high-speed pneumatic rotation was used (Control Group—CG) while for the other side, high-speed electrical rotation was used (Study Group—SG). Statistical analysis included ANOVA repeated measures and Pearson correlations. SG group showed: shorter operative time (p = 0.019), less pain (p = 0.034), swelling (p < 0.001) and trismus (p = 0.025) on the 1st postoperative day; less pain (p = 0.034) and trismus (p = 0.010) on the 3rd postoperative day; less trismus (p = 0.032) on the 7th postoperative day; and better quality of life (p = 0.007). No differences were observed for peripheral bone damage or bone density of alveolar repair at 2 and 4 months between groups. Electric high-speed rotation provided better postoperative clinical parameters of pain, edema and trismus when compared with pneumatic high-speed rotation for mandibular third molar surgery.Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials registration number RBR-4xyqhqm (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4xyqhqm).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference23 articles.
1. Gümrükçü, Z., Balaban, E. & Karabağ, M. Is there a relationship between third-molar impaction types and the dimensional/angular measurement values of posterior mandible according to Pell & Gregory/Winter Classification?. Oral Radiol. 37, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-019-00420-2 (2021).
2. Marciani, R. D. Third molar removal: An overview of indications, imaging, evaluation, and assessment of risk. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. North Am. 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2006.11.007 (2007).
3. Azam, K., Hussain, A., Maqsood, A. & Farooqui, W. A. Effects of surgery duration on post-extractionsequelae following impacted third molar surgeryby using two different bone cutting methods: A double blind randomized trial. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 36, 8–12 (2016).
4. Siroraj, A. P., Ramkumar, S. & Narasimhan, M. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars—the effect of osteotomy at two speeds on peripheral bone: A histopathological analysis. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 54, 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.02.008 (2016).
5. Kirli-Topcu, S. I., Palancioglu, A., Yaltirik, M. & Koray, M. Piezoelectric surgery versus conventional osteotomy in impacted lower third molar extraction: Evaluation of perioperative anxiety, pain, and paresthesia. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 77, 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.015 (2019).