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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Apr 17;14(1):8828.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-59611-5.

The influence of electrical high-speed rotation on mandibular third molar surgeries: a prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical and radiographic study

Izabella Sol  1 , Karen Rawen Tonini  1 , Karen Santin Dos Reis  2 , Henrique Hadad  1 , Daniela Ponzoni  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The influence of electrical high-speed rotation on mandibular third molar surgeries: a prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical and radiographic study

Izabella Sol et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The aim of this split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes (operative time, edema, trismus, and pain), the immediate histological effects, the alveolar repair (2 and 4 months), and the quality of life after the extraction of impacted third molars using high-speed pneumatic and electrical rotation. Sixteen patients underwent extraction of the two mandibular third molars with a minimum interval of 15 days. On one side of the participant's mouth, high-speed pneumatic rotation was used (Control Group-CG) while for the other side, high-speed electrical rotation was used (Study Group-SG). Statistical analysis included ANOVA repeated measures and Pearson correlations. SG group showed: shorter operative time (p = 0.019), less pain (p = 0.034), swelling (p < 0.001) and trismus (p = 0.025) on the 1st postoperative day; less pain (p = 0.034) and trismus (p = 0.010) on the 3rd postoperative day; less trismus (p = 0.032) on the 7th postoperative day; and better quality of life (p = 0.007). No differences were observed for peripheral bone damage or bone density of alveolar repair at 2 and 4 months between groups. Electric high-speed rotation provided better postoperative clinical parameters of pain, edema and trismus when compared with pneumatic high-speed rotation for mandibular third molar surgery.Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials registration number RBR-4xyqhqm ( https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4xyqhqm ).

Keywords: Bone regeneration; Molar, third; Oral surgical procedures; Osteotomy; Tooth extraction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
High-speed turbines used. (A) Pneumatic and (B) electric high-speed turbine.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Surgical sequence for both groups. (A) Initial appearance. (B) Envelope incision and mucoperiosteal detachment. (C) Osteotomy and odontosection. (D) Aspect of the socket after tooth extraction and distal biopsy. (E) Distal biopsy of the socket. (F) Sutures.
Figure 3
Figure 3
CONSORT 2010 flow chart.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pain levels in the CG and SG groups for periods of 1, 3, and 7 days. Statistical differences are represented as (*) for p < 0.001, (**) for p < 0.02, and (***) for p < 0.03.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Facial edema for the CG and SG groups for periods of 1, 3, and 7 days. Statistical differences are represented as (*) for p < 0.001.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Trismus in CG and SG groups for periods of 1, 3, and 7 days. Statistical differences are represented as (*) for p < 0.01, (**) for p = 0.003, (***) for p = 0.009, (****) for p = 0.001, (*****) for p = 0.025, and (******) for p = 0.032.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Subscales of the postoperative quality of life questionnaire using the PoSSe Scale. The statistical difference is represented with (*) for p = 0.007.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Band of necrosis (arrow) observed in the CG (A) and SG (B) groups. 40× magnification. HE staining.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gümrükçü Z, Balaban E, Karabağ M. Is there a relationship between third-molar impaction types and the dimensional/angular measurement values of posterior mandible according to Pell & Gregory/Winter Classification? Oral Radiol. 2021;37:29–35. doi: 10.1007/s11282-019-00420-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marciani RD. Third molar removal: An overview of indications, imaging, evaluation, and assessment of risk. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. North Am. 2007;19:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2006.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Azam K, Hussain A, Maqsood A, Farooqui WA. Effects of surgery duration on post-extractionsequelae following impacted third molar surgeryby using two different bone cutting methods: A double blind randomized trial. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2016;36:8–12.
    1. Siroraj AP, Ramkumar S, Narasimhan M. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars—the effect of osteotomy at two speeds on peripheral bone: A histopathological analysis. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016;54:449–453. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.02.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kirli-Topcu SI, Palancioglu A, Yaltirik M, Koray M. Piezoelectric surgery versus conventional osteotomy in impacted lower third molar extraction: Evaluation of perioperative anxiety, pain, and paresthesia. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019;77:471–477. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.015. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types