Lingual split versus surgical bur technique in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review

Abstract

The relative merits of different surgical techniques to extract impacted mandibular third molars have been debated for many years. A simple classification is those using a bur and those using a chisel. This article seeks to identify any differences in postoperative outcomes between the surgical bur and lingual split techniques. Using inclusion criteria allowing randomized controlled trials only, 5 studies are identified of which 4 are used in the analysis. The following outcomes are investigated: pain, swelling, trismus, bleeding, delayed healing/infection, and disturbance to lingual and inferior alveolar nerve function. The limited analysis allowed by the number and size of the studies leads to tentative conclusions of no difference between postoperative pain and swelling, and some evidence of less trismus for the lingual split technique. There is some weak evidence of a similar incidence of neurological sequelae between the 2 techniques, but this is not a strong conclusion owing to the small size of the included studies. There are inadequate data regarding bleeding and delayed healing/infection for analysis.