Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 41
  • /
  • Pages.29.1-29.10
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Use of piezoelectric surgery and Er:YAG laser:which one is more effective during impacted third molar surgery?

  • Keyhan, Seied Omid (Stem cell & Regenerative Medicine Network, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Fallahi, Hamid Reza (School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Cheshmi, Behzad (Faculty of Dentistry, Boroujerd Islamic Azad University) ;
  • Mokhtari, Sajad (Stem cell & Regenerative Medicine Network, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Zandian, Dana (School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Yousefi, Parisa (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2019.05.22
  • Accepted : 2019.07.08
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Reduction in postoperative complications is of vital considerations in impacted third molar teeth surgery. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative complications of impacted third molar surgeries for bone removal using laser, piezoelectric equipment, and conventional rotary instruments. Methods: To address the research purpose, the investigator designed the prospective double-blind clinical trial study. The sample size was determined 20 (40 teeth) by sampling formula in any kind of operation. The data of patients were obtained in the different periods in terms of pain, trismus, swelling, ecchymosis, and patient's satisfaction and then analyzed using SPSS 20 software via paired t test and Wilcoxon and McNemar's tests. Results: The pain immediately after surgery and 2 days and 7 days after surgery was higher in the laser group. The swelling immediately after surgery was more in the laser group but not significant. The amount of mouth opening immediately after surgery and 2 days and 7 days after surgery was significantly lower in the laser group than in the piezosurgery group. The total duration of surgery and duration of osteotomy were significantly longer in the laser group. The patient's satisfaction from surgery with piezosurgery was more than that with laser, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion: Due to the rising demand for impacted wisdom tooth surgery, the present study suggests that hard tissue laser surgery and piezosurgery can clear the future of impacted molar surgery, and these approaches are more efficient in reducing postoperative complications compared to the conventional surgeries.

Keywords

References

  1. Santosh P (2015) Impacted mandibular third molars: review of literature and a proposal of a combined clinical and radiological classification. Ann Med Health Sci Res 5(4):229-234 https://doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.160177
  2. Costa MG d, Pazzini CA, Pantuzo MCG, Jorge MLR, Marques LS (2013) Is there justification for prophylactic extraction of third molars? A systematic review. Braz Oral Res 27(2):183-188 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242013005000016
  3. Yuasa H, Kawai T, Sugiura M (2002) Classification of surgical difficulty in extracting impacted third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(1):26-31 https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2001.0684
  4. Mercier P, Precious D (1992) Risks and benefits of removal of impacted third molars: a critical review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 21(1):17-27 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80447-3
  5. Schwartz-Arad D, Lipovsky A, Pardo M, Adut O, Dolev E (2018) Interpretations of complications following third molar extraction. Quintessence Int 49:1
  6. Gorecki, P., Rainsford, K., Taneja, P., Bulsara, Y., Pearson, D., Saund, D., . . . Dietrich, T. (2018). Submucosal diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in third molar surgery: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res, 97(4), 381-387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517744207
  7. Sortino F, Cicciu M. Strategies used to inhibit postoperative swelling following removal of impacted lower third molar. Dental research journal. 2011;8(4):162. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.86031
  8. Kim J-C, Choi S-S, Wang S-J, Kim S-G (2006) Minor complications after mandibular third molar surgery: type, incidence, and possible prevention. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102(2):e4-e11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.050
  9. Landucci A, Wosny A, Uetanabaro L, Moro A, Araujo M (2016) Efficacy of a single dose of low-level laser therapy in reducing pain, swelling, and trismus following third molar extraction surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45(3):392-398 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.10.023
  10. Hasani A, Moshtaghin FA, Roohi P, Rakhshan V (2017) Diagnostic value of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in predicting mandibular nerve exposure during third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46(2):230-235 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.10.003
  11. Cheung LK, Leung Y, Chow L, Wong M, Chan E, Fok Y (2010) Incidence of neurosensory deficits and recovery after lower third molar surgery: a prospective clinical study of 4338 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39(4):320-326 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.11.010
  12. Bouloux GF, Steed MB, Perciaccante VJ (2007) Complications of third molar surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clinics 19(1):117-128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2006.11.013
  13. Galie M, Candotto V, Elia G, Clauser LC (2015) Piezosurgery: a new and safe technique for distraction osteogenesis in Pierre Robin sequence review of the literature and case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 6:269-272 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2014.11.076
  14. Rahnama M, Czupkallo L, Czajkowski L, Grasza J, Wallner J (2013) The use of piezosurgery as an alternative method of minimally invasive surgery in the authors' experience. Videosurgery Other Miniinvasive Techniques 8(4):321
  15. Fisher SE, Frame JW (1984) The effects of the carbon dioxide surgical laser on oral tissues. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22(6):414-425 https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-4356(84)90048-2
  16. Gonzalez C, Van De Merwe WP, Smith M, Reinisch L (1990) Comparison of the erbium-yttrium aluminum garnet and carbon dioxide lasers for in vitro bone and cartilage ablation. Laryngoscope 100(1):14-17
  17. Spencer, P., Payne, J. M., Cobb, C. M., Reinisch, L., Peavy, G. M., Drummer, D. D., . . . Swafford, J. R. (1999). Effective laser ablation of bone based on the absorption characteristics of water and proteins. J Periodontol, 70(1), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1999.70.1.68
  18. Paghdiwala A, Vaidyanathan T, Paghdiwala M (1993) Evaluation of erbium: YAG laser radiation of hard dental tissues: analysis of temperature changes, depth of cuts and structural effects. Scanning Microsc 7(3):989-997
  19. Stubinger S (2010) Advances in bone surgery: the Er: YAG laser in oral surgery and implant dentistry. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2:47 https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S8352
  20. Rud J (1984) Reevaluation of the lingual split-bone technique for removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(2):114-117 https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(84)90323-9
  21. Sortino F, Pedulla E, Masoli V (2008) The piezoelectric and rotatory osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery: comparison of postoperative recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(12):2444-2448 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.004
  22. Abu-Serriah M, Critchlow H, Whitters C, Ayoub A (2004) Removal of partially erupted third molars using an Erbium (Er): YAG laser: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(3):203-208
  23. Chiapasco M, De Cicco L, Marrone G. Side effects and complications associated with third molar surgery. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology. 1993;76(4):412-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(93)90005-O
  24. Passi, D., Pal, U. S., Mohammad, S., Singh, R. K., Mehrotra, D., Singh, G., .. . Gupta, C. (2013). Laser vs bur for bone cutting in impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, 3(2), 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2013.03.006
  25. Matys J, Flieger R, Tenore G, Grzech-Lesniak K, Romeo U, Dominiak M (2018) Er: YAG laser, piezosurgery, and surgical drill for bone decortication during orthodontic mini-implant insertion: primary stability analysis-an animal study. Lasers Med Sci 33(3):489-495 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-017-2381-9
  26. Juodzbalys G, Daugela P. Mandibular third molar impaction: review of literature and a proposal of a classification. Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 2013;4(2).
  27. Armond A, Gloria J, Dos Santos C, Galo R, Falci S (2019) Acupuncture on anxiety and inflammatory events following surgery of mandibular third molars: a split-mouth, randomized, triple-blind clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48(2):274-281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.07.016
  28. Vercellotti T (2000) Piezoelectric surgery in implantology: a case report--a new piezoelectric ridge expansion technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 20:4
  29. de Mello EDA, Pagnoncelli RM, Munin E, Sant'Ana Filho M, de Mello GPS, Arisawa EAL, de Oliveira MG (2008) Comparative histological analysis of bone healing of standardized bone defects performed with the Er: YAG laser and steel burs. Lasers Med Sci 23(3):253-260 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-007-0475-5
  30. Basheer S, Govind R, Daniel A, Sam G, Adarsh V, Rao A (2017) Comparative study of piezoelectric and rotary osteotomy technique for third molar impaction. J Contemp Dent Pract 18(1):60-64 https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1990
  31. Al-Moraissi E, Elmansi Y, Al-Sharaee Y, Alrmali A, Alkhutari A (2016) Does the piezoelectric surgical technique produce fewer postoperative sequelae after lower third molar surgery than conventional rotary instruments? A systematic review and meta analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45(3):383-391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.10.005
  32. Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z. Piezoelectric versus conventional rotary techniques for impacted third molar extraction: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. 2015;94(41).
  33. Bartuli, F., Luciani, F., Caddeo, F., De Chiara, L., Di Dio, M., Piva, P., . . . Arcuri, C. (2013). Piezosurgery vs High Speed Rotary Handpiece: a comparison between the two techniques in the impacted third molar surgery. ORAL Implantology, 6(1), 5.
  34. Pippi R, Alvaro R (2013) Piezosurgery for the lingual split technique in mandibular third molar removal: a suggestion. J Craniofac Surg 24(2):531-533 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31826463f7
  35. Romeo U, Libotte F, Palaia G, Tenore G, Galanakis A, Annibali S (2015) Is erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser versus conventional rotary osteotomy better in the postoperative period for lower third molar surgery? Randomized split-mouth clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73(2):211-218 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.08.013
  36. Romeo U, Del Vecchio A, Palata G, Tenore G, Visca P, Maggiore C (2009) Bone damage induced by different cutting instruments: an in vitro study. Braz Dent J 20(2):162-168 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402009000200013

Cited by

  1. A split-mouth study comparing piezo electric surgery and traditional rotary burs on impacted third molars in young patients: an intraoperative and postoperative evaluation vol.69, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4970.20.04349-6