Does the Tooth Sectioning Method Impact Surgical Removal of the Distoangular Impacted Mandibular Third Molar?
Subham S. Agarwal,Frijo Xavier,Santhosh Rao,Virat Galhotra
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2022.12.005
IF: 1.9
2023-01-04
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Abstract:Purpose Distoangular impacted teeth are considered challenging to remove due to their anatomic position. Proper tooth sectioning ensures the removal with minimal bone removal. This study is aimed to compare the outcome of 2 different tooth sectioning methods. Materials and Methods Patients with distoangular-impacted mandibular third molar were included in this single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients with Class III–impacted, grossly decayed teeth and who were ASA III and above were excluded. The subjects were randomly allocated into Group-A conventional method, where tooth sectioning at the cementoenamel junction, and Group B, the modified method, where tooth sectioning removes only the distal portion of the crown. The primary predictor variable was the tooth sectioning method. The primary outcome variable was the operative time and the secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, trismus, and edema assessed on postoperative days 3 and 7. The effect of treatment on operative time was assessed using a t -test and Chi-squared test was used to compare the categorical data. Results Thirty eight patients were included in this study. With a 1:1 allocation ratio, 18 (50%) patients were included in each group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the 2 groups for gender allocation ( P = .32), age ( P = .34), tooth classification ( P = .97), and side of extraction ( P = .32). The mean operative time was 31.61 ± 14.13 minutes for group A and 22.72 ± 10.79 minutes for group B, at the 95% confidence interval had a P value of .04 ( P < .05), favoring group B. Secondary outcomes of pain measured by VAS 3.83 ± 3.06 for group A and 3.88 ± 3.06 for group B ( P = .95), facial edema 22.79 ± 2.08 and 22.88 ± 1.32, respectively ( P = .88), and the maximal interincisal opening of 33 ± 8.59 and 31.33 ± 7.42 on day 3 ( P = .54) and 36.16 ± 11.62 and 39.05 ± 6.08 on day 7 ( P = .36). However, the need for rescue analgesia 2.05 ± 2.15 and 0.44 ± 0.85 ( P < .01) was statistically significant, signifying the requirement in the conventional sectioning method. Conclusions The results show that both methods of tooth sectioning yield comparably acceptable results. However, the tooth removal was faster by the modified sectioning and the need for rescue analgesia was minimal in this group, signifying it to be a slightly better technique than the conventional method.
dentistry, oral surgery & medicine