Protecting the Lingual Nerve from Damage

Seward, G.R.

doi:10.1054/bjom.2000.0320

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 The study by Robinson and Smith led to contrasting opinions and the debate arisen has not brought to clear and conclusive results yet: a possible explanation can be the excessive pressure made during the lingual flap protection obtained with the elevator. [17][18][19][20][21] The results of the study by Robinson and Smith in 1996 16 is neither confirmed by the studies included here nor by the data that the same authors published few years later 29 and the second is that the LF+ cannot be considered a risk factor for permanent LNI.…”

Section: Nomentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Actually, the debate on how and if lingual flap protection could affect the incidence of LNI is still open. 5,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] This review aims to analyze the existing literature on this topic, to determine whether the LF+ techniques are effective Third Molar Extraction and Lingual Flap Protection Petroni et al…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Actually, the debate on how and if lingual flap protection could affect the incidence of LNI is still open. 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lingual Flap Protection during Third Molar Surgery: A Literature Review

Petroni

Passaretti²,

Zaccheo

et al. 2021

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this review was to analyze how the retraction and protection of lingual flap (LF+) could influence the incidence of lingual nerve injury (LNI) during third molar extraction, as compared with protocols that do not involve handling of lingual tissue (LF). A literature review was performed from the “Medline” and “Scopus” medical databases, using the keywords “lingual nerve” and “third molar surgery.” From the selected articles, the mean values for transitory and permanent LNI’s incidence were elaborated, taking into account the group treated with LF+ technique and the group treated with LF technique. Of 480 articles, 11 studies were included in the review. The LF+ group counted 3,866 surgeries and it resulted in a transitory LNI’s mean incidence of 2.98 ± 0.03% and a mean incidence of 0.1 ± 0.003% for permanent LNI. The LF group counted 5,938 surgeries with, respectively, 1.92 ± 0.02 and 0.49 ± 0.006% of transitory and permanent LNI’s incidence mean values. The results of this study suggest that the application of LF+ techniques reduces the risk of damage and injuries of lingual nerve.

show abstract

Section: Nomentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Actually, the debate on how and if lingual flap protection could affect the incidence of LNI is still open. 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lingual Flap Protection during Third Molar Surgery: A Literature Review

Petroni

Passaretti²,

Zaccheo

et al. 2021

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Actually, the debate on how and if lingual ap protection could affect the incidence of LNI is still open [16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Standardized Step-by-step Technique to Protect Lingual Flap During Third Molar Surgery Avoiding Lingual Nerve Injury: a Retrospective Analysis

Zaccheo,

Petroni,

Gori

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess a standardized flap technique use in the surgical extraction of the lower third molar, protecting the lingual flap and avoiding lingual nerve injury. Methods A 5 years retrospective analysis of surgical third molar surgery made by third-year oral surgery specialty program students was made in the department of oral surgery of Clinica Odontoiatrica, Policlinico Umberto I in Roma, from 2017 to 2022. All surgery were carried out using a standardized step by step technique to protect the lingual flap during the surgery. Every patient underwent a review on the initial postoperative day and subsequently, one week after the surgery, coinciding with the removal of the sutures. During each postoperative visit, thorough examinations were conducted to assess any sensory nerve impairment of the inferior alveolar, lingual, or mylohyoid nerves. Results None of the cases reported postsurgical lingual nerve injury; there was zero incidence of lingual nerve paresthesia or dysesthesia. There was no increased risk to the lingual nerve paresthesia or dry socket, which were identified. Conclusions This flap proved to be a standardized and reproducible approach for the surgical removal of lower third molars without raising the risk of lingual nerve sensory impairment, regardless of the operator’s experience.

show abstract

Lingual flap retraction for third molar removal

Pogrel

Goldman

2004

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protecting the Lingual Nerve from Damage

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Lingual Flap Protection during Third Molar Surgery: A Literature Review

Lingual Flap Protection during Third Molar Surgery: A Literature Review

A Standardized Step-by-step Technique to Protect Lingual Flap During Third Molar Surgery Avoiding Lingual Nerve Injury: a Retrospective Analysis

Lingual flap retraction for third molar removal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About