-
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Diabetes mellitus is a common systematic chronic disease amongst dental patients. The elevated glucose microenvironment can prolong the healing of tooth extraction... (Review)
Review
Diabetes mellitus is a common systematic chronic disease amongst dental patients. The elevated glucose microenvironment can prolong the healing of tooth extraction sockets. Therefore, the promotion of healing up tooth extraction sockets is of great clinical importance to the patients with diabetes mellitus. The current evidence indicates the mechanism of the recovery period of extraction sockets in hyperglycaemia conditions from physiological, inflammation, immune, endocrine and neural aspects. New advancements have been made in varied curative approaches and drugs in the management of wound healing of tooth extraction sockets in diabetes. However, most of the interventions are still in the stage of animal experiments, and whether it can be put into clinical application still needs further explorations. Specifically, our work showed topical administration of plasma-rich growth factor, advanced platelet-rich fibrin, leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin and hyaluronic acid as well as maxillary immediate complete denture is regarded as a promising approach for clinical management of diabetic patients requiring extractions. Overall, recent studies present a blueprint for new advances in novel and effective approaches for this worldwide health ailment and tooth extraction sockets healing.
Topics: Animals; Diabetes Mellitus; Glucose; Hyaluronic Acid; Tooth Extraction; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36213270
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.949535 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2021Extractions of third molars constitute about 90% of the scheduled surgical procedures performed by oral surgeons. Wisdom tooth surgery is associated with complications,...
BACKGROUND
Extractions of third molars constitute about 90% of the scheduled surgical procedures performed by oral surgeons. Wisdom tooth surgery is associated with complications, such as the lingual and inferior alveolar nerve damage, bleeding, tooth/jaw fractures, tooth displacement into the adjacent anatomical spaces, trismus, infections, and other.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the study was to analyze complications after wisdom tooth extraction in patients treated at the Department of Oral Surgery of Jagiellonian University Medical College in Kraków, Poland, in the years 2016-2018.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 339 patients treated in the outpatient setting was performed. The inclusion criterion comprised a single extraction of a third molar. The exclusion criteria were multiple extractions, comorbidities and pregnancy. No antibiotic prophylaxis was used. The incidence of post-extraction complications, such as oroantral communication, postoperative hematoma, acute inflammation of the surrounding tissues, trismus, and transient paresthesia in relation to patient gender and age, the developmental stage and location of the removed tooth as well as the type of surgery were studied.
RESULTS
Perioperative complications occurred in 51 (15.0%) cases, and comprised the acute inflammation of the surrounding tissues in 31 patients, trismus after the removal of 13 lower third molars, oroantral communication after the extraction of 5 upper wisdom teeth, and hematoma as well as a transient sensory alteration of the lingual nerve in 1 case each. Complications were more common in patients who had a surgical extraction of a wisdom tooth with root separation and in cases of lower third molar extractions. No statistically significant correlation was found between the patients' age or gender, the developmental stage of the extracted tooth and the number of observed complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Lower third molars and the necessity of surgical extraction with root separation are risk factors for postoperative complications in patients who require wisdom tooth removal. Complications after the removal of third molars are most often inflammatory.
Topics: Humans; Molar, Third; Poland; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33789003
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/127028 -
Australian Dental Journal Dec 2017Inflammatory complications such as pain, swelling, trismus, infection and alveolar osteitis have an adverse affect on the quality of life of patients after third molar... (Review)
Review
Inflammatory complications such as pain, swelling, trismus, infection and alveolar osteitis have an adverse affect on the quality of life of patients after third molar removal. This review presents the current evidence on postoperative strategies to reduce these complications. A literature search was performed to identify articles published in English between 2000 to 2016 using the following keywords: third molar(s), wisdom tooth/teeth, pain, swelling, trismus, infection, alveolar osteitis and dry socket. In total, 221 papers were reviewed. Methods published included analgesics, antibiotics, corticosteroids, mouthwashes, topical gels, cryotherapy and ozone therapy. This review highlights the variability in evidence available and summarizes the findings from best-quality evidence. In conclusion, paracetamol and ibuprofen are efficacious in managing postoperative pain. Corticosteroids and antibiotics should only be used in selected cases. Chlorhexidine reduces alveolar osteitis. The benefits of cryotherapy, postoperative irrigation and ozone gel are yet to be established.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Inflammation; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 28498604
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12526 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Post-extraction bleeding (PEB) is a recognised, frequently encountered complication in dental practice, which is defined as bleeding that continues beyond 8 to 12 hours... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Post-extraction bleeding (PEB) is a recognised, frequently encountered complication in dental practice, which is defined as bleeding that continues beyond 8 to 12 hours after dental extraction. The incidence of post-extraction bleeding varies from 0% to 26%. If post-extraction bleeding is not managed, complications can range from soft tissue haematomas to severe blood loss. Local causes of bleeding include soft tissue and bone bleeding. Systemic causes include platelet problems, coagulation disorders or excessive fibrinolysis, and inherited or acquired problems (medication induced). There is a wide array of techniques suggested for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding, which include interventions aimed at both local and systemic causes. This is an update of a review published in June 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018), Embase Ovid (1 May 2015 to 24 January 2018) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We searched the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Oral Hemorrhage; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 29502332
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011930.pub3 -
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Aug 2019This retrospective study aimed to investigate complications associated with the extraction of third molars at a tertiary healthcare centre in Oman.
OBJECTIVES
This retrospective study aimed to investigate complications associated with the extraction of third molars at a tertiary healthcare centre in Oman.
METHODS
All consecutive patients who underwent extraction of one or more impacted third molars under general anaesthesia at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman, between January 2007 and December 2017 were included. Age, gender, indication for extraction, teeth removed, procedure and complications were recorded.
RESULTS
A total of 1,116 third molars (56% mandibular and 44% maxillary) were extracted and the majority (67.7%) were from female patients. The mean age at extraction was 24 ± 5 years and most patients (77.7%) were 20-29 years old. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were 3.7% and 8.3%, respectively. The intraoperative complications included tuberosity fracture (1.2%), root fracture (1.1%), bleeding (0.7%), soft tissue injury (0.5%) and adjacent tooth damage (0.2%). Postoperative complications were sensory nerve injuries (7.2%), swelling/pain/ (0.6%) and dry socket (0.5%). Nerve injury was temporary in 41 patients and permanent in four cases. A statistically significant relationship was observed between those aged 30-39 years and dry socket ( = 0.010) as well as bone removal and all postoperative complications ( = 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Most complications resulting from third molar extractions were minor and within the reported ranges in the scientific literature. However, increased age and bone removal were associated with a higher risk of complications. These findings may help to guide treatment planning, informed consent and patient education.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Male; Molar, Third; Oman; Patient Education as Topic; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Tertiary Healthcare; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Young Adult
PubMed: 31728221
DOI: 10.18295/squmj.2019.19.03.009 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2022Exodontia procedures are not without complications, which are the dentist's responsibility to avoid by taking into account clinical, imaging, systemic, and operative... (Review)
Review
Exodontia procedures are not without complications, which are the dentist's responsibility to avoid by taking into account clinical, imaging, systemic, and operative factors, among others. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine and analyze the prevalence of complications post simple exodontia (CPES). The method used in this systematic review was adapted from the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA statement. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect using the search terms "Exodontia" AND "Complications". The search was conducted from the starting coverage date to January 31, 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies on simple exodontia, studies on CPES prevalence and human studies. Studies on complications after third molar exodontia, generalities in exodontia, narratives and systematics literature reviews, book chapters, and animal studies were excluded. A total of 1,446 articles were found in the first search using the search strategy (725 in PubMed, 96 in Scopus and 631 in ScienceDirect). After duplicates were removed, 948 articles were obtained. After reading the title and abstract, 9 articles were read in full. Finally, 3 articles were included in the review, with the most common complications being trismus, alveolitis, pain, dehiscence, infections, and retained roots. Trismus of the chewing muscles, alveolitis and retained roots were the most prevalent CPES, which were most likely related to the surgeon's experience, surgery duration and tissue trauma during surgery.
Topics: Humans; Trismus; Tooth Extraction; Molar, Third; Risk Factors; Pain
PubMed: 36516334
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/144596 -
International Journal of Implant... Dec 2021To address the focused question: in patients with freshly extracted teeth, what is the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in the prevention of pain and the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To address the focused question: in patients with freshly extracted teeth, what is the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in the prevention of pain and the regeneration of soft tissue and bone compared to the respective control without PRF treatment?
METHODS
After an electronic data search in PubMed database, the Web of Knowledge of Thomson Reuters and hand search in the relevant journals, a total of 20 randomized and/or controlled studies were included.
RESULTS
66.6% of the studies showed that PRF significantly reduced the postoperative pain, especially in the first 1-3 days after tooth extraction. Soft tissue healing was significantly improved in the group of PRF compared to the spontaneous wound healing after 1 week (75% of the evaluated studies). Dimensional bone loss was significantly lower in the PRF group compared to the spontaneous wound healing after 8-15 weeks but not after 6 months. Socket fill was in 85% of the studies significantly higher in the PRF group compared to the spontaneous wound healing.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyzed studies, PRF is most effective in the early healing period of 2-3 months after tooth extraction. A longer healing period may not provide any benefits. The currently available data do not allow any statement regarding the long-term implant success in sockets treated with PRF or its combination with biomaterials. Due to the heterogeneity of the evaluated data no meta-analysis was performed.
Topics: Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34923613
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00393-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Drainage; Dry Socket; Humans; Lip; Mandible; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensation Disorders; Surgical Flaps; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tongue; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Wound Closure Techniques; Young Adult
PubMed: 32712962
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bias; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Remodeling; Confidence Intervals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Heterografts; Humans; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33899930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2018Damage to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) while extracting lower third molars is often caused by the intimate relationship between the nerve and the roots of the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
AIM
Damage to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) while extracting lower third molars is often caused by the intimate relationship between the nerve and the roots of the teeth. The aim of this study was to compare the sequelae of coronectomy with odontectomy in impacted mandibular third molars.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This study included thirty patients which were divided into two groups, Group-I (test group) including 15 patients undergoing coronectomy and Group-2 (control group) of 15 patients undergoing odontectomy. Investigations included digital orthopantomogram. The parameters for this study included pain, swelling, nerve paresthesia, trismus, postoperative infection, postoperative wound dehiscence, postoperative pocket depth, and migration.
RESULTS
In Group-1 (coronectomy group), the patients underwent follow-up for 6 months to evaluate migration of the retained mandibular third molar root which was in proximity with the IAN. There was a mean increase in migration when the distance from the inferior border of IAN until the apex of the retained mandibular third molar root was measured which was by 3.43 mm after 6 months of follow up.
CONCLUSION
On statistical analysis, the result in this study showed no statistical difference in both the groups in all the parameters that were taken.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mandible; Mandibular Nerve; Molar, Third; Time Factors; Tooth Crown; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Migration; Tooth Root; Tooth, Impacted; Trigeminal Nerve Injuries; Young Adult
PubMed: 30409940
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_549_16