Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel vs Turbine Drill in Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: Impact on Postoperative Pain and Inflammation.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-08-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S534667
Ge Wang, Hui Wang, Jie Xu, Xiaoyan Zhang
{"title":"Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel vs Turbine Drill in Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: Impact on Postoperative Pain and Inflammation.","authors":"Ge Wang, Hui Wang, Jie Xu, Xiaoyan Zhang","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S534667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare postoperative outcomes between ultrasonic bone scalpel and turbine drill techniques for impacted mandibular third molar extraction, focusing on pain, inflammation, and recovery parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study analyzed 109 patients treated between 2020 and 2022, divided into an ultrasonic group (n=55; piezoelectric osteotomy) and a turbine group (n=54; high-speed drilling). Primary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, facial swelling, maximum mouth opening, and pain scores assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 6, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were collected preoperatively and on postoperative day 3 to quantify levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), substance P (SP), serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and myeloperoxidase (MPO).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ultrasonic group demonstrated 35% shorter operative time (20.04 vs 31.06 min; P<0.001, Cohen's d=2.84), 21% less blood loss (7.94 vs 10.01 mL; P<0.001, d=2.95), significantly lower VAS scores at 24h (3.25 vs 3.65; P=0.036) and 72h (0.52 vs 0.85; P=0.009), and 40% reduced analgesic use (2.1 vs 3.5 tablets; P<0.001), alongside biomarker reductions including 41% lower CGRP and 33% lower TNF-α (P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ultrasonic bone scalpel demonstrates superior clinical outcomes including reduced operative duration, attenuated pain/inflammation, and faster recovery, though limitations include retrospective design and short-term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"4029-4036"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12357587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S534667","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare postoperative outcomes between ultrasonic bone scalpel and turbine drill techniques for impacted mandibular third molar extraction, focusing on pain, inflammation, and recovery parameters.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 109 patients treated between 2020 and 2022, divided into an ultrasonic group (n=55; piezoelectric osteotomy) and a turbine group (n=54; high-speed drilling). Primary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, facial swelling, maximum mouth opening, and pain scores assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 6, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were collected preoperatively and on postoperative day 3 to quantify levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), substance P (SP), serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and myeloperoxidase (MPO).

Results: The ultrasonic group demonstrated 35% shorter operative time (20.04 vs 31.06 min; P<0.001, Cohen's d=2.84), 21% less blood loss (7.94 vs 10.01 mL; P<0.001, d=2.95), significantly lower VAS scores at 24h (3.25 vs 3.65; P=0.036) and 72h (0.52 vs 0.85; P=0.009), and 40% reduced analgesic use (2.1 vs 3.5 tablets; P<0.001), alongside biomarker reductions including 41% lower CGRP and 33% lower TNF-α (P<0.001).

Conclusion: The ultrasonic bone scalpel demonstrates superior clinical outcomes including reduced operative duration, attenuated pain/inflammation, and faster recovery, though limitations include retrospective design and short-term follow-up.

超声骨刀与涡轮钻对下颌第三磨牙拔除术后疼痛和炎症的影响。
目的:比较超声骨刀和涡轮钻技术在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术后的效果,重点观察疼痛、炎症和恢复参数。方法:本回顾性队列研究分析了2020 - 2022年间治疗的109例患者,分为超声组(n=55,压电截骨)和涡轮组(n=54,高速钻孔)。主要结局包括手术时间、术中出血量、面部肿胀、最大开口以及术后6、24和72小时使用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估的疼痛评分。术前及术后第3天采集龈沟液,定量测定降钙素基因相关肽(CGRP)、P物质(SP)、血清素(5-羟色胺,5-HT)、肿瘤坏死因子-α (TNF-α)、细胞间粘附分子-1 (ICAM-1)、髓过氧化物酶(MPO)水平。结果:超声组手术时间缩短35% (20.04 min vs 31.06 min);结论:超声骨手术刀具有较好的临床效果,缩短手术时间,减轻疼痛/炎症,恢复更快,但存在回顾性设计和短期随访等局限性。
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
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信