A Prospective Split-Mouth Clinical Study: Comparison of Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotary Instruments in Impacted Third Molar Surgery
A Prospective Split-Mouth Clinical Study: Comparison of Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotary Instruments in Impacted Third Molar Surgery
A Prospective Split-Mouth Clinical Study: Comparison of Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotary Instruments in Impacted Third Molar Surgery
Menziletoglu, D., Basturk, F., Isik, B.K., Esen, A. 2020. A prospective split-
mouth clinical study: comparison of piezosurgery and conventional
rotary instruments in impacted third molar surgery. Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery 24. p 51-55.
t osteotomies were done by piezosurgery technique. Duration of the procedure was recorded.
Postoperative pain was assessed using a visua analogue scale (VAS). All the patients were
given a form containing verbal rating scale for evaluating the swelling. Trismus was
r evaluated using a caliper at maximum mouth opening (cm). In postoperative seventh day,
patients were asked to fill a global quality of life (QoL) scale as well.
a Results There was no significant difference in postoperative pain, trismus, and swelling
between control and experimental groups (p > 0.05). However, time of the procedure
increased in control group (p < 0.05).
c Conclusion Piezosurgery is a safe way for performing the osteotomies during third molar
surgery. However, regarding the postoperative morbidity, it does not have an advantage
t over conventional rotary instruments. Piezosurgery took longer to complete the osteotomy
than the rotary handpiece technique.
• Removal of impacted third molars
is one of the most performed oral
surgical operations.
Introduction • Partially or fully impacted third
molars can be associated with
pericoronitis, pain, odontogenic
infections, trismus, cysts, or even
tumors
Post operative complications
Control Group:
Experimental
rotary handpiece 1 month to the
Group:
and tungsten 2nd Surgery
Piezosurgery
carbide burs
Method
• Before the surgery, patients used 10% povidone-iodine mouthwash for 1 min
• Inferior alveolar block and buccal anesthesia were performed with 2 mL of
4% articain HCl and 1:200.000 epinephrine solution.
• A fullthickness envelope flap with a vertical releasing incision was reflected
• carbide surgical burs were used for tooth sectioning.
• Extraction wounds were closed with 3-0 silk sutures.
• Patients were postoperatively prescribed a 5-day:
100 mg flurbiprofen twice daily,
1 g amoxicillin twice daily
0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate antiseptic mouthwash every 8 h
Method
Pain Swelling MIO QoL
In postoperative
global quality of life
Pain was A form containing seventh day, when
(QoL) scale to
selfevaluated verbal rating scale the patients came for
evaluate their
daily by using a ranging from 0 to 5, removing the
general well-being
visual analogue showing the degree sutures, MIO was
during the first
scale (VAS) of swelling measured to assess
postoperative week
trismus
Daily, during 1st Daily, during 1st 7th day postoperative 7th day postoperative
postoperative week postoperative week
The data were tested for normality by using Shapiro-Wilk test. Wilcoxon test was used for
comparing pain, swelling, and QoL.MIO and DO were compared with paired t-test.
Significance level was set as .0.5.
Results
Results
• There was no statistically significant difference
experimental and control groups (p > 0.05) regarding
postoperative pain and swelling
• In the experimental group, preoperative MIO was 37.73 ±
5.6 mm, and postoperative MIO was 34.83 ± 5.8 mm. In
the control group, preoperative MIO was 38.13 ± 5.3 mm
and postoperative 33.93 ± 6.45 mm. Although the
decrease in MIO was less in experimental group, the
difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.393)
Preoperative and postoperative mean mouth opening values
Results
• There was no significant difference between QoL of two
groups (mean values 77.33 ± 14.49 in experimental group
and 77.17 ± 13.63 in control group, p = 0.909)
• The only significant difference was found between DO of
two groups (14.03 ± 4.23 min in experimental group, 10.6 ±
2.74 min in control group, p < 0.01)
Discussion
Tools for removing bone
rotary
piezosurgery
handpieces
Tools for removing bone :
Rotary handpiece vs Piezosurgery
Authors Variable Result
pain, swelling, and trismus Piezosurgery Less
Mantovani (1890)
Duration of operation Piezosurgery More