Volume 5, Issue 2 (5-2020)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2020, 5(2): 2-6 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Fatahi Vanani N, Golestaneh A, MalekiGorji M. Comparison of Pain, Wound Healing, Facial Edema, and Surgeon’s Comfort in Surgical Extraction of Impacted Third Molars: Surgical Scalpel Versus Radiofrequency Incision. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2020; 5 (2) :2-6
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-267-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-267-en.html
1- Dentist
2- Assistant professor, Oral and maxillofacial surgery Dept, Dental school, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) branch, Isfahan, Iran , drgolestaneh@gmail.com
3- Postgraduate student, Oral and maxillofacial surgery Dept, Dental school,
2- Assistant professor, Oral and maxillofacial surgery Dept, Dental school, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) branch, Isfahan, Iran , drgolestaneh@gmail.com
3- Postgraduate student, Oral and maxillofacial surgery Dept, Dental school,
Abstract: (3321 Views)
Background and Aim: This study aimed to compare the level of pain, wound healing, facial edema, and surgeon’s comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using surgical scalpel versus radiofrequency (RF) incision.
Materials and Methods: This split-mouth clinical trial evaluated 41 patients with bilateral impacted third molars in one jaw with the same Pederson difficulty index (between 5 and 7, moderate difficulty). The surgical incision was made using a surgical scalpel on one random side and an RF device on the contralateral side. The level of pain was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) 7 days postoperatively. The wound healing was evaluated using the wound evaluation scale (WES) 4 weeks postoperatively. Facial edema was quantified using a tape measure 7 days postoperatively. Surgeon’s comfort was assessed by asking the surgeons regarding the level of easiness of the procedure. The pain score, wound healing score, facial edema, and surgeon’s comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars were compared between the two sides using SPSS 22 via paired t-test and McNemar’s test.
Results: The surgeon’s comfort was significantly higher in the use of a surgical scalpel (P<0.001). The difference in pain score (P=0.95), wound healing (P=0.32), and facial edema (P>0.05) was not significant between the two groups.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed no significant difference in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using a surgical scalpel or an RF device regarding the level of pain, wound healing, or facial edema.
Materials and Methods: This split-mouth clinical trial evaluated 41 patients with bilateral impacted third molars in one jaw with the same Pederson difficulty index (between 5 and 7, moderate difficulty). The surgical incision was made using a surgical scalpel on one random side and an RF device on the contralateral side. The level of pain was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) 7 days postoperatively. The wound healing was evaluated using the wound evaluation scale (WES) 4 weeks postoperatively. Facial edema was quantified using a tape measure 7 days postoperatively. Surgeon’s comfort was assessed by asking the surgeons regarding the level of easiness of the procedure. The pain score, wound healing score, facial edema, and surgeon’s comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars were compared between the two sides using SPSS 22 via paired t-test and McNemar’s test.
Results: The surgeon’s comfort was significantly higher in the use of a surgical scalpel (P<0.001). The difference in pain score (P=0.95), wound healing (P=0.32), and facial edema (P>0.05) was not significant between the two groups.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed no significant difference in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using a surgical scalpel or an RF device regarding the level of pain, wound healing, or facial edema.
Keywords: Pain, Wound Healing, Edema, Impacted Tooth, Third Molar, Tooth Extraction, Radiofrequency Therapy
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Oral & maxillofacial surgery
References
1. 1. Hashemipour MA, Tahmasbi-Arashlow M, Fahimi-Hanzaei F. Incidence of Impacted Mandibular and Maxillary Third Molars: A Radiographic Study in a Southeast Iran Population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Jan 1;18(1):e140-5. [DOI:10.4317/medoral.18028] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Kanneppady SK, Balamanikandasrinivasan, Kumaresan R, Sakri SB. A comparative study on radiographic analysis of impacted third molars among three ethnic groups of patients attending AIMST Dental Institute, Malaysia. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 May;10(3):353-8.
3. Passi D, Singh G, Dutta S, Srivastava D, Chandra L, Mishra S, et al. Study of pattern and prevalence of mandibular impacted third molar among Delhi-National Capital Region population with newer proposed classification of mandibular impacted third molar: A retrospective study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Jan-Jun;10(1):59-67. [DOI:10.4103/njms.NJMS_70_17] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Sherman JA. Oral surgery simplified with radiosurgery. Dent Today. 2008 Feb;27(2):123-4.
5. Sumit S, Simarpreet S, Gurminder S, Vikas S. Radiosurgery in Dentistry - A Brief. Ann Dent Res. 2012;2(1):8-20.
6. Machtaler S, Knieling F, Luong R, Tian L, Willmann JK. Assessment of inflammation in an acute on chronic model of inflammatory bowel disease with ultrasound molecular imaging. Theranostics. 2015 Aug 8;5(11):1175-86. [DOI:10.7150/thno.13048] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Grossi GB, Maiorana C, Garramone RA, Borgonovo A, Beretta M, Farronato D, et al. Effect of submucosal injection of dexamethasone on postoperative discomfort after third molar surgery: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Nov;65(11):2218-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2006.11.036] [PMID]
8. Humbert PG, Meaune S, Gharbi T. Wound healing assessment. Phlebolymphology. 2004 Spring;47:312-19.
9. Hamdan S, Pastar I, Drakulich S, Dikici E, Tomic-Canic M, Deo S, et al. Nanotechnology-Driven Therapeutic Interventions in Wound Healing: Potential Uses and Applications. ACS Cent Sci. 2017 Mar 22;3(3):163-75. [DOI:10.1021/acscentsci.6b00371] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1:S17-24. [DOI:10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Zhang Y, Ruan Z, Shen M, Tan L, Huang W, Wang L, et al. Clinical effect of platelet-rich fibrin on the preservation of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction. Exp Ther Med. 2018 Mar;15(3):2277-86. [DOI:10.3892/etm.2018.5696]
12. Dijkers M. Comparing quantification of pain severity by verbal rating and numeric rating scales. J Spinal Cord Med. 2010 Jun;33(3):232-42. [DOI:10.1080/10790268.2010.11689700] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Silverman EB, Read RW, Boyle CR, Cooper R, Miller WW, McLaughlin RM. Histologic comparison of canine skin biopsies collected using monopolar electrosurgery, CO2 laser, radiowave radiosurgery, skin biopsy punch, and scalpel. Vet Surg. 2007 Jan;36(1):50-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1532-950X.2007.00234.x] [PMID]
14. Hasar ZB, Ozmeric N, Ozdemir B, Gökmenoğlu C, Baris E, Altan G, et al. Comparison of radiofrequency and electrocautery with conventional scalpel incisions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Nov 1;74(11):2136-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.172] [PMID]
15. Kim JH, Yu HY, Park SY, Lee SC, Kim YC. Pulsed and conventional radiofrequency treatment: which is effective for dental procedure-related symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia? Pain Med. 2013 Mar;14(3):430-5. [DOI:10.1111/pme.12046] [PMID]
16. Bovaira M, Peñarrocha M, Peñarrocha M, Calvo A. Conventional radiofrequency treatment in five patients with trigeminal neuralgia. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Jan 1;18(1):e76-80. [DOI:10.4317/medoral.17372] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Kashkouli MB, Kaghazkanai R, Mirzaie AZ, Hashemi M, Parvaresh MM, Sasanii L. Clinicopathologic comparison of radiofrequency versus scalpel incision for upper blepharoplasty. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Nov-Dec;24(6):450-3. [DOI:10.1097/IOP.0b013e31818acfce] [PMID]
18. Etemadi A, Bitaraf T, Amini A, Goudarzi M, Nadafpour N. Bacterial Accumulation on Triclosan-Coated and Silk Sutures After Dental Implant Surgery. J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci. 2019;4(3):1-4. [DOI:10.29252/jrdms.4.3.1]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
