Influence of a novel suturing technique on periodontal health of mandibular second molar following impacted third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.
Oral surgery
Periodontal pocket
Sutures
Third molar
Journal
Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2288-8101
Titre abrégé: Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101633100
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Mar 2022
22 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
24
09
2021
accepted:
13
03
2022
entrez:
22
3
2022
pubmed:
23
3
2022
medline:
23
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Surgical extraction of the third molar is the most common surgical procedure in the oral surgery field and is associated with several complications. This study aimed to compare the effects of a newly presented suturing technique with the routine suture after surgical removal of the third molar on the postoperative complications. This randomized clinical trial was designed as a split-mouth double-blinded investigation. Twenty patients were involved in the current study. After the surgical removal of the third molar, the new suturing technique was used to close the wound on one side of the patient randomly (case side), and the other side was sutured by the routine simple interrupted stitches (control side). Pain, edema, trismus, pocket depth, and the attachment loss of the distal of the second molar were assessed following the surgery. The data were statistically analyzed and compared between the sides. Pain and edema following the surgery in the control side were significantly less than in the case side. The pocket depth and the gingival attachment loss of the distal aspect of the second molar in the case side were significantly less than in the control side. No case of dry socket was observed in the case side. It seems that the newly presented suturing technique is able to keep the wound margins close to each other and may be helpful in reducing the periodontal complication of the second molar following the surgical removal of the impacted third molars.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Surgical extraction of the third molar is the most common surgical procedure in the oral surgery field and is associated with several complications. This study aimed to compare the effects of a newly presented suturing technique with the routine suture after surgical removal of the third molar on the postoperative complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
This randomized clinical trial was designed as a split-mouth double-blinded investigation. Twenty patients were involved in the current study. After the surgical removal of the third molar, the new suturing technique was used to close the wound on one side of the patient randomly (case side), and the other side was sutured by the routine simple interrupted stitches (control side). Pain, edema, trismus, pocket depth, and the attachment loss of the distal of the second molar were assessed following the surgery. The data were statistically analyzed and compared between the sides.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Pain and edema following the surgery in the control side were significantly less than in the case side. The pocket depth and the gingival attachment loss of the distal aspect of the second molar in the case side were significantly less than in the control side. No case of dry socket was observed in the case side.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
It seems that the newly presented suturing technique is able to keep the wound margins close to each other and may be helpful in reducing the periodontal complication of the second molar following the surgical removal of the impacted third molars.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35314922
doi: 10.1186/s40902-022-00342-w
pii: 10.1186/s40902-022-00342-w
pmc: PMC8938538
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
12Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Oct;34(7):756-60
pubmed: 16098716
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Sep;15(3):147-52
pubmed: 21484217
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Oct;65(10):1977-83
pubmed: 17884525
J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2017 May-Aug;21(2):317-318
pubmed: 28932049
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Jan;51(1 Suppl 1):3-6
pubmed: 8419585
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Apr;69(4):971-6
pubmed: 20950914
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Feb;40(1):26-31
pubmed: 11883966
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2014 Oct;44(5):222-6
pubmed: 25368810
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Aug;108(2):156-61
pubmed: 19615653
J Periodontol. 2001 Dec;72(12):1647-51
pubmed: 11811499
Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;3(1):10-4
pubmed: 23251051
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Oct;32(5):548-52
pubmed: 14759117
J Periodontol. 2019 Aug;90(8):847-855
pubmed: 30825324
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Apr;50(3):256-8
pubmed: 21636189
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Nov;69(11):2691-7
pubmed: 21864969