Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2013; 2(01): 25-30
DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.106799
Original Article

Techniques in the removal of impacted mandibular third molar: A comparative study

Vibha Singh
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, K.G.M.U. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Khonsao Alex
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, K.G.M.U. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
R. Pradhan
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, K.G.M.U. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Shadab Mohammad
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, K.G.M.U. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Nimisha Singh
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, K.G.M.U. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective: Surgical removal of impacted third molar is one of the common surgical procedures carried out in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery set up. This study aimed at clinically assessing the three different surgical techniques (lingual split, using chisel and mallet, buccal approach techniques, using rotary instruments used in the removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Materials and Methods: The present clinical study comprised of 150 impacted mandibular wisdom teeth. Patients were divided in three groups and bone covering the third molar was removed by the Lingual split technique using chisel and mallet, Buccal approach technique using chisel and mallet, and Buccal approach technique using rotary instruments. Results: Surgical time was significantly increased in bur technique. Trismus was significantly increased in lingual split technique and bur technique from buccal approach technique using chisel and mallet. Post-operative nerve injury was significantly higher in lingual split technique. Dry socket was more in patients of bur technique. Conclusion: In this study we found that lingual split technique using chisel and mallet is found to be better among all three techniques used followed by buccal approach using chisel and mallet and the buccal approach technique using rotary instruments.

Keywords

Lingual split technique - paresthesia - trismus


Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

© 2013. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Ward TG. Split bone technique for removal of lower third molar. Br Dent J 1956;101:297-301.
  • 2 Seymour RA. The use of pain scales in assessing the effect of analgesics in post operative dental pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1982;23:5441-4.
  • 3 Breytenbach HS. Objective measurement of post operative swelling. Int J Oral Surg 1978;7:386-92.
  • 4 Wood GD, Branco JA. A comparison of three methods of measuring maximal opening of the mouth. J Oral Surg 1979;37:175-7.
  • 5 Textbook of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Kurger GO, editor. 6 th ed. Mosby: New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 1990.
  • 6 Thoma KH. Oral Surg. In: Bioanatomy. 4 th ed, Vol. 1. St Louis: C. V. Mosby Co.; 1963. p. 29.
  • 7 Archer WH. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 5 th ed, Vol. 1. USA: W.B. Saunders Company; 1976.
  • 8 Szmyd L, Hester WR. Crevicular depth of the second molar in impacted third molar surgery. J Oral Surg 1963;21:185-9.
  • 9 Rud J. The split-bone technique for removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Surg 1970;28:416-21.
  • 10 Von Arx DP, Simpson MT. The effect of dexamethasone on neuropaxia following third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;27:477-80.
  • 11 Rood JP. Degree of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve sustained during the removal of impacted mandibular third molars by lingual split technique. Br J Oral Surg 1983;21:103-16.
  • 12 Brin H. Etiology and pathogenesis of fibrinolytic alveolitis (dry socket). Int J Oral Surg 1973;2:211-63.
  • 13 MacGregor AJ, Addy A. Value of penicillin in the prevention of pain, swelling and trismus following the removal of ectopic third molars. Int J Oral Surg 1980;9:166-72.
  • 14 Lilly GE, Osborn DB, Rael EM, Samuel HS, Jones JC. Alveolar Osteotis associated with mandibular third molar extraction. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;88:802-6.
  • 15 Horton JE, Tarpley TM Jr, Jacoway JR. Clinical applications of ultrasonic instrumentation in the surgery removal of bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981;51:236-42.