Comparison of morbidity following the removal of mandibular third molar by lingual split, surgical bur and simplified split bone technique

Praveen, G; Rajesh, Preety; Neelakandan, R. S.; Nandagopal, CM

doi:10.4103/0970-9290.30916

Cited by 17 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 5 - 8 ] The split bone technique was introduced by Ward in 1956;[ 9 ] chisels were the preferred instruments for bone removal. Another study[ 10 ] stated that the technique was more painful and most of the patients may not tolerate the jarring effect of chisel and mallet while operating under local anesthesia. Hence, it was preferable to opt for rotary instruments for bone removal and tooth sectioning for surgery under local anesthesia, but the use of rotatory osteotomy and oscillating saws results in irregular surfaces and marginal osteonecrosis due to the high temperature generated during osteotomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative and clinical evaluation between piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction

Sharma,

Gupta,

Pabari

et al. 2022

National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of the mandibular impacted third molar removal using piezoelectric technique and conventional rotary bur technique. Settings: The study was conducted in the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2020. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients, with an age of 18–40 years, with asymptomatic bilateral impacted mandibular third molars, were selected for the study and randomly surgical extraction was done either using piezoelectric or the conventional rotary bur technique on each site. The intraoperative time taken, postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus were assessed over a follow-up period of 7 days postoperatively. Results: Study and control groups were compared using paired t-test. There was statistical significance in reduction of pain and swelling in the study group where the duration of surgery was increased in the study group. Conclusion: Even if piezoelectric technique takes more time but can be used safely as another technique to conventional surgical method with surgical bur and handpiece for removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative and clinical evaluation between piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction

Sharma,

Gupta,

Pabari

et al. 2022

National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth

Coulthard

Bailey

Esposito

et al. 2014

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract