Donlayawan Tidpraman

Nath Nuntaratpun

Amornrat Vanichyobol

Keywords :

piezoelectric device, surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars, impacted tooth

Abstract :

The objective of this study was to compare the symptoms and surgical times of using piezoelectric surgery and conventional osteotomy techniques for mandibular third molar surgery. This was a clinical study with a control group. The sample group included 16 patients, with a mean age of 28.5 ± 2.6 years. The piezoelectric surgery was used in experimental group, while the conventional osteotomy techniques was used in control group. For the study results, the mean PoSSe scales in the experimental group and the control group were 23.0 ± 11.7 and 27.3 ± 15.0, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between surgical times, mouth opening distances, pain scores, and 4 facial reference point distances before and after treatment (p > 0.05). This study can be applied as a guideline for using a piezoelectric device in mandibular third molar impaction surgery for effective and positive treatment outcomes.

References :

1. Barone A, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Rispoli L, Calvo JL, Covani U. A randomized clinical evaluation of ultrasound bone surgery versus traditional rotary instruments in lower third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68: 330-6.

2. Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:1647- 52.

3. Yuasa H, Kawai T, Sugiura M. Classification of surgical difficulty in extracting impacted third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;40:26-31.

4. Hupp JR, Elvis E, Tucker MR. Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. p. 160-84.

5. Blus C, Szmukler-Moncler S. Atraumatic tooth extraction and immediate implant placement with piezosurgery: evaluation of 40 sites after at least 1 year of loading. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010;30:355-63.

6. Phaisri S. Alveolar distraction osteogenesis: a new modality for the alveolar augmentation. CM Dent J. 2014;35:55-67.

7. Pavlíková G, Foltán R, Horká M, Hanzelka T, Borunská H, Sedý J. Piezosurgery in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40:451-7.

8. Ruta DA, Bissias E, Ogston S, Ogden GR. Assessing health outcomes after extraction of third molars: the postoperative symptom severity (PoSSe) scale. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;38:480-7.

9. Bartuli FN, Luciani F, Caddeo F, DE Chiara L, DI Dio M, Piva P, et al. Piezosurgery vs high speed rotary handpiece: a comparison between the two techniques in the impacted third molar surgery. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013;6:5-10.

10. Mantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, Ferrero L, Gallesio G, Mozzati M, et al. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of piezosurgery compared with traditional technique in lower wisdom tooth removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:1890-7.

11. Sivolella S, Berengo M, Bressan E, Di Fiore A, Stellini E. Osteotomy for lower third molar germectomy: randomized prospective crossover clinical study comparing piezosurgery and conventional rotatory osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:e15-23.

12. Kirli Topcu SI, Palancioglu A, Yaltirik M, Koray M. Piezoelectric surgery versus conventional osteotomy in impacted lower third molar extraction: evaluation of perioperative anxiety, pain, and paresthesia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:471-7.

13. Patil C, Jadhav A, Rajanikanth K, Bhola N, Borle RM, Mishra A. Piezosurgery vs bur in impacted mandibular third molar surgery: evaluation of postoperative sequelae. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019;9:259-62.

14. Ziccardi VB, Zuniga JR. Nerve injuries after third molar removal. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007;19: 105-15.

15. Rood JP, Shehab BA. The radiological prediction of inferior alveolar nerve injury during third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;28:20-5.

16. Bruce RA, Frederickson GC, Small GS. Age of patients and morbidity associated with mandibular third molar surgery. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;101:240-5.

17. Chiapasco M, Crescentini M, Romanoni G. Germectomy or delayed removal of mandibular impacted third molars: the relationship between age and incidence of complications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53:418-22; discussion 422-3.