COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SURGICAL OUTCOMES IN IMPACTED MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLAR REMOVAL USING PIEZOELECTRIC VERSUS CONVENTIONAL ROTARY INSTRUMENTS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Impacted mandibular third molar, piezoelectric surgery, rotary instruments, postoperative pain, swelling, trismus.c
Abstract
Background: Surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is one of the most common procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery and is frequently associated with postoperative complications such as pain, facial swelling, and trismus. Conventional rotary instruments have long been used for osteotomy during third molar removal; however, piezoelectric surgery has emerged as a modern alternative that allows precise and selective bone cutting while minimizing trauma to surrounding soft tissues. Several studies suggest that piezoelectric devices may reduce postoperative morbidity compared with rotary instruments, although they may require longer surgical time.
Aim: To compare the surgical outcomes of impacted mandibular third molar removal using piezoelectric instruments versus conventional rotary instruments.
Materials and Methods: This comparative clinical study was conducted among 40 patients requiring surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Patients were randomly divided into two groups:
- Group A (n = 20): Extraction using conventional rotary instruments.
- Group B (n = 20): Extraction using a piezoelectric surgical device.
All procedures were performed under local anesthesia following a standardized surgical protocol. The clinical parameters evaluated included duration of surgery, postoperative pain (using Visual Analog Scale), facial swelling, trismus (maximum mouth opening), and postoperative complications. Assessments were carried out on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate tests, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The mean surgical duration was significantly longer in the piezoelectric group compared with the rotary group. However, patients treated with piezoelectric surgery showed significantly lower postoperative pain scores, reduced facial swelling, and less trismus during the follow-up period. Previous clinical studies similarly report that piezoelectric techniques reduce postoperative pain and edema compared with conventional rotary instruments.
The incidence of postoperative complications such as alveolar osteitis and infection was also lower in the piezoelectric group.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, piezoelectric surgery demonstrated superior postoperative outcomes compared with conventional rotary instruments, with reduced pain, swelling, and trismus following impacted mandibular third molar removal. Although the procedure required a slightly longer operative time, piezoelectric surgery appears to be a safer and more patient-friendly alternative for third molar surgery.
References
2. Eggers G, Klein J, Blank J, Hassfeld S, Thuroff JW, Muhling J. Piezosurgery: an ultrasound device for cutting bone. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;42(5):451-453. DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.02.004
3. Mantovani E, Laino L, De Santis D, Biondi E, Sbordone L, Ferrigno N. Clinical comparison between piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments in third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(10):1899-1907. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.010
4. Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z. Piezoelectric versus conventional rotary techniques for impacted third molar extraction: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(41):e1685. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000001685
5. Fernandes MJ, Ogden GR, Pitts NB, Ogston SA, Ruta DA. Incidence of symptoms in previously symptom-free impacted lower third molars assessed in general dental practice. Br Dent J. 2009 Sep 12;207(5):E10; discussion 218-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.804.
6. Rakprasitkul S. Pathologic changes in the pericoronal tissues of unerupted third molars. Quintessence Int. 2001 Sep;32(8):633-8. PMID: 11526892.
7. Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C, Checchi L, Bonetti GA. Randomized clinical comparison of piezosurgery and conventional osteotomy in third molar surgery. Saudi Dent J. 2020;32(3):120-126.
8. Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V. Comparative evaluation of surgical outcomes using piezotome and rotary bur in impacted third molar surgery. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2012;2(3):152-155. DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2012.06.002
9. Li X, Lin Y, Wang Y, Liu L, Chen Y, Zheng G. Piezosurgery vs rotary instruments in third molar extraction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(8):3169-3179. DOI:10.1007/s00784-019-02831-4
10. Sortino F, Pedulla E, Masoli V, Palermo F, Pizzo G, Spagnuolo G. The piezoelectric osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(12):2446-2453. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.051
11. Mozzati M, Gallesio G, Arata V, Pol R, Scoletta M, Berrone S. Ultrasonic bone surgery in impacted third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(7):1598-1603. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.052
12. Praveen G, Rajesh P, Neelakandan RS, Nandagopal CM. Comparison of morbidity following the removal of mandibular third molar by lingual split, surgical bur and simplified split bone technique. Indian J Dent Res. 2007 Jan-Mar;18(1):15-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.30916. PMID: 17347539.
13. Stubinger S, Kuttenberger J, Filippi A, Sader R, Zeilhofer HF. Intraoral piezosurgery: preliminary results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(9):1283-1287. DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.011
14. Sivolella S, Berengo M, Bressan E, Di Fiore A, Stellini E, Favero L. Osteotomy for impacted third molar removal: piezosurgery versus conventional rotary instruments. Quintessence Int. 2011;42(5):e1-e8.
15. Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D’Aquino R, Festa VM, Amato M. Piezoelectric device versus conventional rotary instruments in third molar surgery. Minerva Stomatol. 2013;62(7-8):247-256. DOI:10.23736/S0026-4970.13.03784-5
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. Fiza Khanam
PG Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
Dr. Meghna Mehta
Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Community Dentistry, Mithila Minority Dental College, Darbhanga, Bihar, India
Dr. Pranav Parashar
Professor, Department of Dentistry, N.S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
