Roberto Pippi1, Andrea Spota2, Marcello Santoro3. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Odontostomatological and Maxillofacial Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. Researcher, Department of Odontostomatological and Maxillofacial Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 3. PhD Student, Department of Odontostomatological and Maxillofacial Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: santoro_marcello@yahoo.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify any factors that could aid the surgeon in preventing or minimizing the risk of lingual nerve injury during third molar surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic research was carried out on the correlation between lingual nerve damage and lower third molar surgery (topographic anatomy, surgical technique, and regional anesthesia) using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane central databases. The research included only articles published in English up to February 2016. RESULTS: Lingual nerve anatomy varied greatly: direct contact between the lingual nerve and the third molar alveolar wall was reported in a wide range of cases (0 to 62%) and the nerve was located at the same level or above the top of the ridge in 0 to 17.6% of cases. No detailed data were found on the actual incidence of lingual nerve injury resulting from local anesthesia by injection. Permanent lingual nerve damage did not show statistically relevant differences between the simple buccal approach and the buccal approach plus lingual flap retraction, although the latter was statistically associated with an increased risk of temporary damage. Lingual spit technique was statistically associated with an increased risk of temporary nerve damage than the buccal approach with or without lingual flap retraction. For permanent damage, no statistically relevant differences were found between the lingual split technique and the buccal approach with lingual flap retraction. Compared with tooth sectioning, the ostectomy was strongly statistically associated with permanent lingual nerve damage. CONCLUSIONS: Results should be interpreted with extreme caution because of the considerable heterogeneity of the data and the considerable influence of several anatomic and surgical variables that were closely related, but difficult to analyze independently. It seems preferable to avoid lingual flap elevation, except in selected cases in which the presence of more than 1 unfavorable surgical variable predicts a high risk of nerve injury. Tooth sectioning could decrease the extent of the ostectomy or even, in some cases, prevent it, potentially acting as a protective factor against lingual nerve injury.
PURPOSE: To identify any factors that could aid the surgeon in preventing or minimizing the risk of lingual nerve injury during third molar surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic research was carried out on the correlation between lingual nerve damage and lower third molar surgery (topographic anatomy, surgical technique, and regional anesthesia) using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane central databases. The research included only articles published in English up to February 2016. RESULTS: Lingual nerve anatomy varied greatly: direct contact between the lingual nerve and the third molar alveolar wall was reported in a wide range of cases (0 to 62%) and the nerve was located at the same level or above the top of the ridge in 0 to 17.6% of cases. No detailed data were found on the actual incidence of lingual nerve injury resulting from local anesthesia by injection. Permanent lingual nerve damage did not show statistically relevant differences between the simple buccal approach and the buccal approach plus lingual flap retraction, although the latter was statistically associated with an increased risk of temporary damage. Lingual spit technique was statistically associated with an increased risk of temporary nerve damage than the buccal approach with or without lingual flap retraction. For permanent damage, no statistically relevant differences were found between the lingual split technique and the buccal approach with lingual flap retraction. Compared with tooth sectioning, the ostectomy was strongly statistically associated with permanent lingual nerve damage. CONCLUSIONS: Results should be interpreted with extreme caution because of the considerable heterogeneity of the data and the considerable influence of several anatomic and surgical variables that were closely related, but difficult to analyze independently. It seems preferable to avoid lingual flap elevation, except in selected cases in which the presence of more than 1 unfavorable surgical variable predicts a high risk of nerve injury. Tooth sectioning could decrease the extent of the ostectomy or even, in some cases, prevent it, potentially acting as a protective factor against lingual nerve injury.
Authors: Adib Al-Haj Husain; Daphne Schönegg; Silvio Valdec; Bernd Stadlinger; Thomas Gander; Harald Essig; Marco Piccirelli; Sebastian Winklhofer Journal: J Imaging Date: 2022-03-17