Post-Surgical Morbidity and Bone Healing of Impacted Lower Third Molars: Piezosurgery vs. Conventional Instruments
Comparative Evaluation of Morbidity and Alveolar Bone Healing After Surgical Extraction of Impacted Lower Third Molar Teeth Using Piezosurgery and Conventional Instruments: A Split-Mouth Clinical Study
1 other identifier
interventional
21
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The aim of this study is to compare piezosurgery and conventional surgery in impacted third molar surgery and to determine its effect on postoperative outcomes and quality of life.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for not_applicable
Started Nov 2022
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
November 1, 2022
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
April 1, 2023
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
April 1, 2023
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
February 1, 2024
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
February 16, 2024
CompletedFebruary 16, 2024
February 1, 2024
5 months
February 1, 2024
February 8, 2024
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Change in Oral Health-related Quality of Life
Evaluated by Oral Health Impact Profile-14 questionnaire (OHIP-14). The OHIP-14 scores can range from 0 to 56 and are calculated by summing the ordinal values for the 14 items. The domain scores can range from 0 to 8. Higher OHIP-14 scores indicate worse and lower scores indicate better Oral Health Related Quality of Life.
Time Frame: 14 days
Secondary Outcomes (4)
Change in pain
7 days
Change in Mouth opening
7 days
Operation time
Intraoperative
Change in facial swelling
7 days
Study Arms (2)
Piezosurgery group
EXPERIMENTALIn the experimental group, a piezosurgery device was used to remove the bone surrounding the impacted third molar. Intervention: Device: Piezosurgery
Conventional group
ACTIVE COMPARATORIn the control group, conventional burs were used to remove the bone surrounding the impacted third molar. Intervention: Device: Conventional burs
Interventions
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- ASA I-II
- Aged 18-35
- Symmetrical Class 2 Position B according to Winter and Pell-gregory classification
- Asymptomatic lower third molar tooth with the same difficulty according to the Yuasa difficulty index
You may not qualify if:
- Individuals who had systemic disease affecting bone or soft tissue metabolism
- Smokers (more than 10 cigarettes a day)
- Alcohol dependent
- Systemic disease affecting bone or soft tissue metabolism
- Acute pericoronitis or acute periodontal disease at the time of operation, and used antibiotics due to acute infection
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry
Ankara, Çankaya, 06510, Turkey (Türkiye)
Related Publications (12)
Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D'Aquino R, Festa VM. Piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013 Mar;41(2):e33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Aug 11.
PMID: 22890087RESULTRosa AL, Carneiro MG, Lavrador MA, Novaes AB Jr. Influence of flap design on periodontal healing of second molars after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Apr;93(4):404-7. doi: 10.1067/moe.2002.122823.
PMID: 12029279RESULTRen YF, Malmstrom HS. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Oct;65(10):1909-21. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.004.
PMID: 17884515RESULTPiersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;72(9):1647-52. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.04.032. Epub 2014 May 6.
PMID: 25109581RESULTCho H, David MC, Lynham AJ, Hsu E. Effectiveness of irrigation with chlorhexidine after removal of mandibular third molars: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan;56(1):54-59. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 6.
PMID: 29223633RESULTCicciu M, Stacchi C, Fiorillo L, Cervino G, Troiano G, Vercellotti T, Herford AS, Galindo-Moreno P, Di Lenarda R. Piezoelectric bone surgery for impacted lower third molar extraction compared with conventional rotary instruments: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Jan;50(1):121-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.03.008. Epub 2020 Apr 11.
PMID: 32284166RESULTMantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, Ferrero L, Gallesio G, Mozzati M, Russo A, Scully C, Carossa S. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of piezosurgery compared with traditional technique in lower wisdom tooth removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Oct;72(10):1890-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 May 13.
PMID: 25234524RESULTSortino F, Pedulla E, Masoli V. The piezoelectric and rotatory osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery: comparison of postoperative recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Dec;66(12):2444-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.004.
PMID: 19022121RESULTGoyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A. Comparative evaluation of surgical outcome after removal of impacted mandibular third molars using a Piezotome or a conventional handpiece: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Sep;50(6):556-61. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.010. Epub 2011 Nov 15.
PMID: 22088359RESULTBarone 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 Feb;68(2):330-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.053. Epub 2010 Jan 15.
PMID: 20116704RESULTGe J, Yang C, Zheng JW, He DM, Zheng LY, Hu YK. Four osteotomy methods with piezosurgery to remove complicated mandibular third molars: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;72(11):2126-33. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.028. Epub 2014 Jun 14.
PMID: 25201232RESULTErdem MK, Cambazoglu M. A comparative analysis of postoperative morbidity and alveolar bone regeneration following surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and conventional instruments: a split-mouth clinical investigation. Eur J Med Res. 2024 Sep 14;29(1):460. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02051-8.
PMID: 39272144DERIVED
MeSH Terms
Interventions
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
Murat K Erdem, PhD, DDS
Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Who Masked
- INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Murat Kaan Erdem, Ph.D, DDS. Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
February 1, 2024
First Posted
February 16, 2024
Study Start
November 1, 2022
Primary Completion
April 1, 2023
Study Completion
April 1, 2023
Last Updated
February 16, 2024
Record last verified: 2024-02
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
- Shared Documents
- STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP
- Time Frame
- Data will become available in 1 month and will be available for 2 years