Literature DB >> 8340625

A comparison of morbidity following the removal of lower third molars by the lingual split and surgical bur methods.

E G Absi1, J P Shepherd.   

Abstract

Fifty-two consecutive healthy patients with bilateral, similarly impacted mandibular third molars were studied. For each patient, both third molars were removed at the same operation by the same experienced operator. On one side, the lingual split method by chisel was used; on the other, the buccal approach with surgical bur. Standard preoperative and postoperative drug regimens were used. Pain, facial swelling (visual analogue scales), and lingual and labial sensory disturbance were recorded for each side by the patients at home 6, 24, and 48 h and 7 days after surgery. Wound healing was assessed at 4 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between methods in relation to pain, facial swelling, sensory loss, infection, or periodontal pocket depth distal to the second molar, although 2% of third molars removed by chisel had lingual sensory disturbance at 7 days, as compared with 8% where burs had been used. There were no statistically significant differences between duration of procedures; mean operating time with burs was 8.28 min (range 4-15 min) and with chisels 7.57 min (range 4-15 min). This study provided no evidence of difference in either efficiency or outcome between two standard methods of removing lower third molars.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8340625     DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80240-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0901-5027            Impact factor:   2.789


  8 in total

1.  [Surgical extraction of wisdom teeth].

Authors:  M Kunkel; J Becker; P Boehme; P Engel; G Göz; D Haessler; D Heidemann; E Hellwig; I Kopp; B Kreusser; H-Ch Lauer; H Luckey; E Reinhard; P Schopf; R Singer; H Terheyden; J C Türp; M Weber; D Weingart; R Werkmeister; W Wagner
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2006-07

Review 2.  Impacted wisdom teeth.

Authors:  Thomas B Dodson; Srinivas M Susarla
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2010-04-08

Review 3.  Rotary Instrument or Piezoelectric for the Removal of Third Molars: a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rafael Alvim Magesty; Endi Lanza Galvão; Carolina de Castro Martins; Cássio Roberto Rocha Dos Santos; Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2016-07-09

Review 4.  Impacted wisdom teeth.

Authors:  Thomas B Dodson; Srinivas M Susarla
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2014-08-29

5.  The effect of modified surgical flap design for removal of lower third molars on lingual nerve injury.

Authors:  Anwar B Bataineh; Ra'ad A Batarseh
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-11-12       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Lingual nerve injury after third molar removal: Unilateral atrophy of fungiform papillae.

Authors:  Míriam Martos-Fernández; Alba de-Pablo-Garcia-Cuenca; Maria S Bescós-Atín
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2014-04-01

7.  Comparison of the effect of naproxen, etodolac and diclofenac on postoperative sequels following third molar surgery: a randomised, double-blind, crossover study.

Authors:  N Akbulut; E Üstüner; C Atakan; G Çölok
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2014-03-01

8.  Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

Authors:  Edmund Bailey; Wafa Kashbour; Neha Shah; Helen V Worthington; Tara F Renton; Paul Coulthard
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-07-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.