Literature DB >> 29038624

Comparing the Efficiency of Two Different Extraction Techniques in Removal of Maxillary Third Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Joseph Edward1, Mubarak A Aziz1, Arjun Madhu Usha1, Jyothi K Narayanan1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Extractions are routine procedures in dental surgery. Traditional extraction techniques use a combination of severing the periodontal attachment, luxation with an elevator, and removal with forceps. A new technique of extraction of maxillary third molar is introduced in this study-Joedds technique, which is compared with the conventional technique. METHODS AND MATERIAL: One hundred people were included in the study, the people were divided into two groups by means of simple random sampling. In one group conventional technique of maxillary third molar extraction was used and on second Joedds technique was used. Statistical analysis was carried out with student's t test.
RESULTS: Analysis of 100 patients based on parameters showed that the novel joedds technique had minimal trauma to surrounding tissues, less tuberosity and root fractures and the time taken for extraction was <2 min while compared to other group of patients.
CONCLUSION: This novel technique has proved to be better than conventional third molar extraction technique, with minimal complications. If Proper selection of cases and right technique are used.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Extraction; Joedds technique; Maxillary third molar

Year:  2016        PMID: 29038624      PMCID: PMC5628062          DOI: 10.1007/s12663-016-0935-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg        ISSN: 0972-8270


  11 in total

1.  Types, frequencies, and risk factors for complications after third molar extraction.

Authors:  Chi H Bui; Edward B Seldin; Thomas B Dodson
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.895

2.  Third molar surgery and associated complications.

Authors:  Srinivas M Susarla; Bart F Blaeser; Daniel Magalnick
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Split-mouth comparison of physics forceps and extraction forceps in orthodontic extraction of upper premolars.

Authors:  Samyuktha Hariharan; Vinod Narayanan; Chen Loong Soh
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 1.651

4.  Incidence of dry socket complication in third molar removal.

Authors:  L S Belinfante; C D Marlow; W Myers; C Rosenberg
Journal:  J Oral Surg       Date:  1973-02

5.  Clinical consequences of complaints and complications after removal of the mandibular third molar.

Authors:  A V van Gool; J J Ten Bosch; G Boering
Journal:  Int J Oral Surg       Date:  1977-02

6.  A clinical investigation into the incidence of dry socket.

Authors:  P A Heasman; D J Jacobs
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 1.651

7.  Frequency of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) at Kenyatta National Hospital Dental Outpatient Clinic--a retrospective study.

Authors:  E G Wagaiyu; J T Kaimenyi
Journal:  East Afr Med J       Date:  1989-10

8.  Post-extraction complications seen at a referral dental clinic in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

Authors:  E Simon; M Matee
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.512

9.  Atraumatic teeth extraction in bisphosphonate-treated patients.

Authors:  Eran Regev; Joshua Lustmann; Rizan Nashef
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 10.  Complications of third molar surgery.

Authors:  Gary F Bouloux; Martin B Steed; Vincent J Perciaccante
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.