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
. 2016 Jul-Dec;6(2):251-259.
doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.200334.

Postsurgical consequences in lower third molar surgical extraction using micromotor and piezosurgery

Freddy Kersi Mistry  1 , Nidarsh Diwakar Hegde  1 , Mithra Nidarsh Hegde  2
Affiliations

Postsurgical consequences in lower third molar surgical extraction using micromotor and piezosurgery

Freddy Kersi Mistry et al. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul-Dec.

Abstract

Background: One of the most critical and crucial steps in surgical extraction is cutting the bone or osteotomy, for which many techniques are used, e.g., chisels and mallet, rotary instruments, and ultrasound bone-cutting instruments. If they are not used judiciously, they can be hazardous.

Objectives: To assess the efficiency of piezosurgery unit over micromotor while performing surgical extraction of lower third molars by assessing the time taken for the surgery and measuring postoperative parameters such as pain, trismus, and swelling.

Materials and methods: Thirty patients having bilateral impacted third molars with the same difficulty index were selected for the study. One side surgical removal was done using micromotor and other side by piezosurgery with an interval of 15 days. After each surgery, time taken to finish was measured and patients were followed up on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 15 for assessing pain, trismus, and swelling. Data obtained were statistically analyzed.

Results: The mean time taken for the micromotor group is 37.90 min whereas by the piezosurgery group is 54.63 min, showing a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Furthermore, there is statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) in the level of pain, trismus, and swelling on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, and 7. Even the intragroup comparison of piezosurgical group for trismus and swelling showed no statistically significant difference on postoperative day 7, indicating faster recovery of trismus and swelling. On postoperative day 15, there was no difference in any parameter in both groups indicating complete symptom-free recovery in both groups.

Conclusion: It takes more time to perform surgical extraction of third molars when piezosurgical unit is used. Despite that, it causes less pain postoperatively with faster improvement in trismus and quicker reduction in swelling.

Keywords: Extraction; lower third molars; micromotor; odontectomy; pain; piezosurgery; swelling; trismus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a and b) Micromotor which was used for bone osteotomy of Group I
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a and b) Piezosurgical unit which was used for bone osteotomy of Group II
Figure 3
Figure 3
Osteotomy done by micromotor unit
Figure 4
Figure 4
Osteotomy done by piezosurgical unit
Figure 5
Figure 5
(a) First cutaneous landmark to measure swelling. (b) Second intraoral landmark to measure swelling
Figure 6
Figure 6
Pain comparison in both study groups
Figure 7
Figure 7
Trismus comparison in both study groups
Figure 8
Figure 8
Swelling comparison in both study groups
Figure 9
Figure 9
Time taken in both study groups
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akadiri OA, Obiechina AE. Assessment of difficulty in third molar surgery – a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:771–4. - PubMed
    1. Barone A, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Rispoli L, Calvo JL, Covani U. A randomized clinical evaluation of ultrasound bone surgery versus traditional rotary instruments in lower third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:330–6. - PubMed
    1. Grossi GB, Maiorana C, Garramone RA, Borgonovo A, Creminelli L, Santoro F. Assessing postoperative discomfort after third molar surgery: A prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:901–17. - PubMed
    1. 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;18:15–8. - PubMed
    1. Kerawala CJ, Martin IC, Allan W, Williams ED. The effects of operator technique and bur design on temperature during osseous preparation for osteosynthesis self-tapping screws. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88:145–50. - PubMed