Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The aim of this study is to compare piezosurgery and conventional surgery in impacted third molar surgery and to determine its effect on postoperative outcomes and quality of life.
The aim of our study is to comparatively evaluate the duration of the operation and the pain, trismus, edema and healing of the alveolar bone that occur after tooth extraction in surgical extractions of impacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and traditional rotary instruments.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piezosurgery group | Experimental | In the experimental group, a piezosurgery device was used to remove the bone surrounding the impacted third molar. Intervention: Device: Piezosurgery |
|
| Conventional group | Active Comparator | In the control group, conventional burs were used to remove the bone surrounding the impacted third molar. Intervention: Device: Conventional burs |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piezosurgery | Device | Piezosurgery used as an osteotomy device |
| |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Oral Health-related Quality of Life | Evaluated by Oral Health Impact Profile-14 questionnaire (OHIP-14). The OHIP-14 scores can range from 0 to 56 and are calculated by summing the ordinal values for the 14 items. The domain scores can range from 0 to 8. Higher OHIP-14 scores indicate worse and lower scores indicate better Oral Health Related Quality of Life. | Time Frame: 14 days |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in pain | Postoperative pain was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from the absence of pain (score 0) to the most severe pain imaginable | 7 days |
| Change in Mouth opening |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Murat K Erdem, PhD, DDS | Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry | Ankara | Çankaya | 06510 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22890087 | Result | Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D'Aquino R, Festa VM. Piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013 Mar;41(2):e33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Aug 11. | |
| 12029279 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Data will become available in 1 month and will be available for 2 years
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D059745 | Piezosurgery |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D059708 | Ultrasonic Surgical Procedures |
| D013514 | Surgical Procedures, Operative |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Conventional burs |
| Device |
Conventional burs used as an osteotomy device |
|
The distance between the mesio-incisal corners of the upper and lower central incisors was measured with the help of a ruler when the mouth opening was at its maximum.
| 7 days |
| Operation time | The total time from the first incision of the operation site to the last suture was measured with the help of a digital stopwatch as the operation time. | Intraoperative |
| Change in facial swelling | With the technique described by Neupert ; Angle of mandible-tragus Angle of mandible-lateral canthus of eye Mandible corner-nose wing Angle of mandible oral-commissures Measurements were made with a tape measure from 5 points, with the mandible corner-pogonion. | 7 days |
| Rosa AL, Carneiro MG, Lavrador MA, Novaes AB Jr. Influence of flap design on periodontal healing of second molars after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Apr;93(4):404-7. doi: 10.1067/moe.2002.122823. |
| 17884515 | Result | Ren YF, Malmstrom HS. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Oct;65(10):1909-21. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.004. |
| 25109581 | Result | Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;72(9):1647-52. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.04.032. Epub 2014 May 6. |
| 29223633 | Result | Cho H, David MC, Lynham AJ, Hsu E. Effectiveness of irrigation with chlorhexidine after removal of mandibular third molars: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan;56(1):54-59. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 6. |
| 32284166 | Result | Cicciu M, Stacchi C, Fiorillo L, Cervino G, Troiano G, Vercellotti T, Herford AS, Galindo-Moreno P, Di Lenarda R. Piezoelectric bone surgery for impacted lower third molar extraction compared with conventional rotary instruments: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Jan;50(1):121-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.03.008. Epub 2020 Apr 11. |
| 25234524 | Result | Mantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, Ferrero L, Gallesio G, Mozzati M, Russo A, Scully C, Carossa S. 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 Oct;72(10):1890-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 May 13. |
| 19022121 | Result | Sortino F, Pedulla E, Masoli V. The piezoelectric and rotatory osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery: comparison of postoperative recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Dec;66(12):2444-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.004. |
| 22088359 | Result | Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A. Comparative evaluation of surgical outcome after removal of impacted mandibular third molars using a Piezotome or a conventional handpiece: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Sep;50(6):556-61. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.010. Epub 2011 Nov 15. |
| 20116704 | Result | 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 Feb;68(2):330-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.053. Epub 2010 Jan 15. |
| 25201232 | Result | Ge J, Yang C, Zheng JW, He DM, Zheng LY, Hu YK. Four osteotomy methods with piezosurgery to remove complicated mandibular third molars: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;72(11):2126-33. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.028. Epub 2014 Jun 14. |
| 39272144 | Derived | Erdem MK, Cambazoglu M. A comparative analysis of postoperative morbidity and alveolar bone regeneration following surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and conventional instruments: a split-mouth clinical investigation. Eur J Med Res. 2024 Sep 14;29(1):460. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02051-8. |