Evaluation of lingual split technique vs. Buccal guttering in extraction of lingually placed impacted mandibular third molar: A comparative study.

Aims and objective: To evaluate lingual split technique vs buccal guttering in the extraction of lingually placed impacted mandibular third molar and to assess the clinical outcome of the two techniques in relation to pain, swelling, mouth opening, intra-operative time, dry socket, paraesthesia due to injury to the lingual and inferior alveolar nerve and hemorrhage.

Materials and methods: The present clinical study comprised of 36 lingually impacted mandibular third molars. Patients were divided into two groups, and bone covering the third molar was removed by the lingual split technique using chisel and mallet and buccal guttering approach technique using rotary instruments.

Results: The conventional buccal guttering technique took longer time with higher incidence of dry socket than the lingual split technique. Significant findings were also recorded in the lingual split technique in terms of pain, swelling, and trismus. Postoperative nerve injury was significantly higher in lingual split technique.

Conclusion: The study concluded that lingual split technique using chisel and mallet is found to be better than the buccal guttering approach technique using rotary instruments.