Comparison of piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar

doi:10.19438/j.cjoms.2019.05.008

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effect of using piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar. METHODS: Two hundred and forty patients with horizontally impacted mandibular third molar were equally divided into 2 groups: using piezosurgery device and traditional method for extraction. The operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications including deformation of extraction sockets, dry socket, limitation of mouth opening, pain and swelling, and fear were observed and compared between the two groups. The data were analyzed with SPSS 13.0 software package. RESULTS: The operation time was (18.0±6.3) min in the minimally invasive extraction group, significantly shorter than the traditional method group which was (37.0±8.2）min (P<0.05); significant difference was found in the incidence of medium or severe tooth sockets deformation and incidence of psychological fear during operation between the two groups(P<0.05); the degree of mouth opening after surgery, the incidence of moderate or severe pain after surgery was significantly lower in the group with piezosurgery device than in the group with traditional method (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive extraction with piezosurgery device is better than traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar, with shorter operation time and fewer intraoperative and postoperative complications, which should be widely applied in clinic.

Key words: Horizontally impacted mandibular third molar, Piezosurgery device, Minimally invasive extraction, Traditional extraction

CLC Number:

R782.11

DING Feng, WU Xian, YANG Xi-hu, ZHOU Fei-jun, DING Xiao-jun. Comparison of piezosurgery device and traditional method in extraction of horizontally impacted mandibular third molar[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2019, 17(5): 431-435.

References

[1] 邱蔚六. 口腔颌面外科学 [M]. 第6 版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008: 75-84.
[2] Bello SA, Adeyemo WL, Bamgbose BO, et al.Effect of age, impaction types and operative time on inflammatory tissue reactions following lower third molar surgery[J]. Head Face Med, 2011, 7: 8.
[3] Bhati B, Kukreja P, Kumar S, et al.Piezosurgery versus rotatory osteotomy in mandibular impacted third molar extraction[J]. Ann Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 7(1): 5-10.
[4] Rashad A, Kaiser A, Prochnow N, et al.Heat production during different ultrasonic and conventional osteotomy preparations for dental implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011, 22(12): 1361-1365.
[5] 胡开进, 杨擎天. 微创拔牙理念及技术操作[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2011, 38(3): 249-252.
[6] 李晨琳, 徐光宙, 杨驰, 等. 下颌阻生第三磨牙阻生类型与第二磨牙损害相关性的影像分析[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(4): 357-361.
[7] 徐芳, 张慧霞. 微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法拔除下颌阻生智牙疗效比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2016, 25(5): 613-616.
[8] Borgonovo AE, Rigaldo F, Maiorana C, et al.CBCT evaluation of the tridimensional relationship between impacted lower third molar and the inferior alveolar nerve position[J]. Minerva Stomatol, 2017, 66(1): 9-19.
[9] 王高丽, 王俊, 杜湘伟, 等. 微创拔除下颌第三磨牙患者心理干预模式及其效果研究[J].实用口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(5): 721-723.
[10] Brignardello-Petersen R.Piezoelectric instruments used for odontosection or osteotomy may result in less trismus after surgical mandibular third-molar extraction than rotatory instruments[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2017, 148(7): e102.
[11] Hasegawa T, Ri S, Shigeta T, et al.Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar-a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013,42(7): 843-851.
[12] 杨映阳, 杜胜男, 吕宗凯. 高速涡轮机头和微创拔牙刀在下颌阻生牙拔除术中的应用效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(4): 489-492.
[13] Vercellotti T, De Paoli S, Nevins M.The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2001, 21(6): 561-567.
[14] Ma L, Stübinger S, Liu XL, et al.Healing of osteotomy sites applying either piezosurgery or two conventional saw blades: a pilot study in rabbits[J]. Int Orthop, 2013, 37(8): 1597-1603.
[15] Stübinger S, Stricker A, Berg BI.Piezosurgery in implant dentistry[J]. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent, 2015, 7: 115-124.
[16] 张永信. 严格掌握抗菌药物应用指征[J]. 中国临床医生, 2005, 33(5): 16-17.
[17] Ghaeminia H, Hoppenreijs TJ, Xi T, et al.Postoperative socket irrigation with drinking tap water reduces the risk of inflammatory complications following surgical removal of third molars: a multicenter randomized trial[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2017, 21(1): 71-83.