A comparative analysis of postoperative morbidity and alveolar bone regeneration following surgical extraction of ımpacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and conventional ınstruments: a split-mouth clinical ınvestigation

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Murat Kaan Erdem, Mine Cambazoglu
{"title":"A comparative analysis of postoperative morbidity and alveolar bone regeneration following surgical extraction of ımpacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and conventional ınstruments: a split-mouth clinical ınvestigation","authors":"Murat Kaan Erdem, Mine Cambazoglu","doi":"10.1186/s40001-024-02051-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This randomized, split-mouth study aimed to compare postoperative complications following the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars using piezosurgery versus conventional rotary instruments. Twenty-one patients, aged 18–35 years, with bilaterally and symmetrically impacted lower third molars, were randomly assigned to undergo extraction using piezosurgery on one side and conventional rotary instruments on the other. The piezosurgery method required a longer operation time. However, it resulted in quicker resolution of postoperative swelling by the 7th day compared to the conventional method, where swelling persisted longer. Mandibular angle-tragus measurements were significantly higher with the conventional method on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days. Although mouth opening decreased significantly after piezosurgery, it returned to preoperative levels by the 7th day, outperforming the conventional method. Postoperative pain was notably higher with the conventional method during the first four days but showed no significant difference from the 5th day onward. Alveolar bone healing was significantly better with piezosurgery at the 3rd and 6th months. Temporary paresthesia occurred in one patient from the conventional group, resolving within four weeks. Neither method resulted in alveolar osteitis. Within the study's limitations, piezosurgery demonstrated a reduction in postoperative discomfort, suggesting its advantage in enhancing patient recovery following lower third molar extractions. Piezosurgery, when used appropriately, can reduce postoperative complications compared to conventional methods. Clinicians should be aware of its indications, benefits, and potential challenges. Trial registration This study was registered as a clinical trial to the ClinicalTrials.gov, and the registration ID is NCT06262841 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06262841 ).","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-02051-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This randomized, split-mouth study aimed to compare postoperative complications following the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars using piezosurgery versus conventional rotary instruments. Twenty-one patients, aged 18–35 years, with bilaterally and symmetrically impacted lower third molars, were randomly assigned to undergo extraction using piezosurgery on one side and conventional rotary instruments on the other. The piezosurgery method required a longer operation time. However, it resulted in quicker resolution of postoperative swelling by the 7th day compared to the conventional method, where swelling persisted longer. Mandibular angle-tragus measurements were significantly higher with the conventional method on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days. Although mouth opening decreased significantly after piezosurgery, it returned to preoperative levels by the 7th day, outperforming the conventional method. Postoperative pain was notably higher with the conventional method during the first four days but showed no significant difference from the 5th day onward. Alveolar bone healing was significantly better with piezosurgery at the 3rd and 6th months. Temporary paresthesia occurred in one patient from the conventional group, resolving within four weeks. Neither method resulted in alveolar osteitis. Within the study's limitations, piezosurgery demonstrated a reduction in postoperative discomfort, suggesting its advantage in enhancing patient recovery following lower third molar extractions. Piezosurgery, when used appropriately, can reduce postoperative complications compared to conventional methods. Clinicians should be aware of its indications, benefits, and potential challenges. Trial registration This study was registered as a clinical trial to the ClinicalTrials.gov, and the registration ID is NCT06262841 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06262841 ).
使用压电外科手术和传统器械拔除受撞击的下第三磨牙后的术后发病率和牙槽骨再生的比较分析:分口临床调查
这项随机分口研究旨在比较使用压电外科器械和传统旋转器械手术拔除撞击性下第三磨牙后的术后并发症。21 名患者年龄在 18-35 岁之间,患有双侧对称的撞击性下第三磨牙,他们被随机分配到一侧接受压电手术拔牙,另一侧接受传统旋转器械拔牙。压电手术法需要更长的手术时间。不过,与肿胀持续时间较长的传统方法相比,压电手术法能更快地在术后第 7 天消除肿胀。传统方法在术后第 1 天、第 3 天和第 7 天的下颌角-ragus 测量值明显更高。虽然压电手术后张口度明显下降,但在术后第 7 天恢复到术前水平,优于传统方法。传统方法的术后疼痛感在术后前四天明显较高,但从术后第五天开始就没有明显差异了。压电手术在第 3 个月和第 6 个月的牙槽骨愈合效果明显更好。传统方法组的一名患者出现暂时性麻痹,但在四周内缓解。两种方法均未导致牙槽骨炎。在该研究的局限性范围内,压电手术减少了术后不适,这表明它在促进下第三磨牙拔除术后患者恢复方面具有优势。与传统方法相比,压电手术如果使用得当,可以减少术后并发症。临床医生应了解其适应症、优点和潜在挑战。试验注册 本研究已作为临床试验在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册,注册编号为NCT06262841 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06262841 )。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信