Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 May;75(5):890-900.
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.12.040. Epub 2017 Jan 4.

Prevention of Lingual Nerve Injury in Third Molar Surgery: Literature Review

Affiliations
Review

Prevention of Lingual Nerve Injury in Third Molar Surgery: Literature Review

Roberto Pippi et al. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 May.

Abstract

Purpose: To identify any factors that could aid the surgeon in preventing or minimizing the risk of lingual nerve injury during third molar surgery.

Materials and methods: Electronic research was carried out on the correlation between lingual nerve damage and lower third molar surgery (topographic anatomy, surgical technique, and regional anesthesia) using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane central databases. The research included only articles published in English up to February 2016.

Results: Lingual nerve anatomy varied greatly: direct contact between the lingual nerve and the third molar alveolar wall was reported in a wide range of cases (0 to 62%) and the nerve was located at the same level or above the top of the ridge in 0 to 17.6% of cases. No detailed data were found on the actual incidence of lingual nerve injury resulting from local anesthesia by injection. Permanent lingual nerve damage did not show statistically relevant differences between the simple buccal approach and the buccal approach plus lingual flap retraction, although the latter was statistically associated with an increased risk of temporary damage. Lingual spit technique was statistically associated with an increased risk of temporary nerve damage than the buccal approach with or without lingual flap retraction. For permanent damage, no statistically relevant differences were found between the lingual split technique and the buccal approach with lingual flap retraction. Compared with tooth sectioning, the ostectomy was strongly statistically associated with permanent lingual nerve damage.

Conclusions: Results should be interpreted with extreme caution because of the considerable heterogeneity of the data and the considerable influence of several anatomic and surgical variables that were closely related, but difficult to analyze independently. It seems preferable to avoid lingual flap elevation, except in selected cases in which the presence of more than 1 unfavorable surgical variable predicts a high risk of nerve injury. Tooth sectioning could decrease the extent of the ostectomy or even, in some cases, prevent it, potentially acting as a protective factor against lingual nerve injury.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources