A Clinical Comparison of Er:YAG Laser, Piezosurgery, and Conventional Bur Methods in the Impacted Third Molar Surgery.

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate whether Er:YAG laser and piezosurgery methods can be an alternative to the conventional bur method. Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative pain, swelling, trismus and patient satisfaction between Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery device, and conventional bur methods that are used to remove bone barrier during extraction of the impacted lower third molar. Methods: Thirty healthy patients who have bilateral, asymptomatic, vertically impacted mandibular third molar teeth according to Pell and Gregory classification Class II and Winter Class B were selected. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. In 30 patients one side of the bony cover around the tooth was removed by the conventional bur technique, on the other side 15 patients were treated with the Er:YAG laser (VersaWave dental laser; HOYA ConBio) 200 mJ, 30 Hz, 4.5-6 W, noncontact mode, SP and R-14 handpiece tip, under air and saline solution, and 15 patients with the piezosurgery technique (VarioSurg Piezo; NSK) with frequency 20-100 kHz, 10-80% power range in Surgery (S), continuous mode, with SG17 and SG5 handpiece tip blade. Preoperative, 48th hour and 7th day measurements were made and recorded about pain, swelling, and trismus. At the end of the treatment, patients were asked to fill out a satisfaction questionnaire. Results: The pain observed at the postoperative 24th hour was statistically significantly lower in the laser group than in the piezosurgery group (p < 0.05). Only in the laser group swelling was seen with statistically significant differences between preoperative and postoperative 48th h (p < 0.05). Postoperative 48th h trismus value was seen as the highest in the laser group than others. Patient satisfaction was found to be higher in the laser and piezo technique compared with the bur technique. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser and piezo methods can be a good alternative to the conventional bur method when postoperative complications are compared. We believe that laser and piezo methods will be preferred for patients due to increased patient satisfaction. Clinical Trial Registration number: B.30.2.ANK.0.21.63.00/08 date: 28.01.10 no:150/3.