Comparison of two different flap designs in removal of impacted wisdom tooth

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two different flap designs on surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. METHODS: Four hundred patients who required removal of impacted mandibular third molars were included in the study. They were divided into group A and group B randomly. Patients in group A received distal incision flap and group B underwent angular incision flap. The effect of flap design on surgical time, incidence of dry socket, pain, swelling and trismus was evaluated postoperatively. Data analysis was carried out with SPSS 13.0 software package. RESULTS: The surgical time was longer in group A than in group B 3 days postoperatively. Facial swelling and trismus were less in group A than in group B 3 days postoperatively. There was no significant difference in two groups 7 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The distal incision flap design can release facial swelling and trismus in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.

Key words: Impacted tooth, Tooth extraction, Flap design

CLC Number:

R782.11

HE Jin-quan,OUYANG Ke-xiong,ZHANG Qing-bin,ZHOU Miao,YANG Zi-nan,PIAO Zheng-guo. Comparison of two different flap designs in removal of impacted wisdom tooth[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2015, 24(2): 224-227.

References

[1] 孙仁义, 方平娟, 肖进, 等. 分根法与去近中阻力法拔除下颌阻生牙的比较 [J]. 上海口腔医学, 2012, 21(3): 344-349.
[2] 李民, 江卫东, 应俊, 等. 高速涡轮牙钻在拔除下颌阻生智齿中的临床应用 [J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2014, 30(4): 243-244.
[3] 李晓光, 赵峰, 王艳春, 等. 下颌阻生智齿涡轮钻法与锤凿法拔除的临床比较 [J]. 上海口腔医学, 2002, 11(1): 79-81.
[4] Baqain ZH, Karaky AA, Sawair F, et al. Frequency estimates and risk factors for postoperative morbidity after third molar removal: a prospective cohort study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg,2008,66(11): 2276-2283.
[5] 郭照中, 张恒, 李焱, 等. 高速涡轮钻、超声骨刀和常规方法拔除下颌阻生智牙的比较 [J].上海口腔医学, 2012, 21(2): 208-210.
[6] Nageshwar. Comma incision for impacted mandibular third molars[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2002, 60(12): 1506-1509.
[7] Erdogan O, Tatlı U, Ustün Y, et al. Influence of two different flap designs on the sequelae of mandibular third molar surgery[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 15(3): 147-152.
[8] 杨擎天, 胡开进, 薛洋, 等. 阻生下颌第三磨牙2种拔除方法的比较 [J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2010, 26(1): 71-74.
[9] Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Gutwald R, Reichman J, et al. Marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in impacted third molar surgery: a prospective study [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2003, 95(4): 403-408.
[10] Alkan A, Metin M, Arici S, et al. A prospective randomised cross-over study of the effect of local haemostasis after third molar surgery on facial swelling: an exploratory trial [J]. Br Dent J, 2004, 197(1): 42-44.
[11] Baqain ZH, Al-Shafii A, Hamdan AA, et al. Flap design and mandibular third molar surgery: a split mouth randomized clinical study [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 41(8): 1020-1024.
[12] Kirk DG, Liston PN, Tong DC, et al. Influence of two different flap designs on incidence of pain, swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis in the week following third molar surgery [J].Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2007, 104(1): e1-6.
[13] Briguglio F, Zenobio EG, Isola G, et al. Complications in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars in relation to flap design: clinical and statistical evaluations [J]. Quintessence Int, 2011, 42 (6): 445-453.
[14] Yuasa H, Sugiura M. Clinical postoperative findings after removal of impacted mandibular third molars: prediction of postoperative facial swelling and pain based on preoperative variables [J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2004, 42(3): 209-214.
[15] Sandhu A, Sandhu S, Kaur T. Comparison of two different flap designs in the surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 39(11): 1091-1096.