Share This Article:

Ultrasonic piezotome surgery: is it a benefit for our patients and does it extend surgery time? A retrospective comparative study on the removal of 100 impacted mandibular 3rd molars

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:2277KB) PP. 179-184
DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2011.14027    8,997 Downloads   20,445 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Aim of the study was to evaluate if there is a constant and significant reduction in traumaticity when mas- sively traumatic oral surgical procedures such as the removal of third molars are conducted with only ul- trasonic surgical devices (Piezotomes) expressed in a reduction of postsurgical pain and swelling on the patient’s side since such clinical experiences by the authors suggested this. Since oral surgeons criticize a higher time consumption for surgeries with Piezoto- mes also the objective time consumption was evalu- ated and compared to the traditional methods. Mate- rial and Methods: 56 female and male patients were selected that already underwent a removal of an im- pacted third mandibular molar on one side with rota- ry instruments by bone destructive burring with a still persisting comparable third mandibular molar on the contralateral side complaining about recur- rent pain episodes and were already documented for pain and swelling before. The ultrasonic surgical re- moval with the Piezotome was conducted with a buc- cal osteotomy of the compacta lateral to the impacted third molar, preservation of the resected compacta in saline solution, removal of the third molar by single or multiple dentotomy and full anatomical restitution of the surgical site with the preserved buccal com- pacta. The swelling was documented by kephalome- try 24/48/72 hours and 1 week post surgery, the pain index by the total consumption of ibuprofen-400 mg—tablets. Lesions of the mandible nerve were documented. Netto surgery time was taken from the first incision to the last suture of the procedure. Re-sults: 6 patients had to be excluded from evaluation due to incomplete post surgical follow up. A signify-cant (***, p > 0.999) decrease in pain and swelling of 50% was detected both for the parameters swelling and pain with Piezotome-surgery. No lesions of the mandible nerve were detected with Piezotome sur- gery whereas surgery with rotary instruments re- sulted in 16% hypesthesia at least up to one week. Although netto surgery time was approximately 50% longer when done with the Piezotome at the begin-ning the time consumption normalized with the growing experience of the surgeons back to the time schedule when surgery was performed with rotary instruments revealing no significant differences (-, p < 0.73). Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study suggest that Piezotome-surgery is superior in atraumaticity and soft-tissue safety compared to tra- ditional procedures with burs and grants the patients significantly less post surgical pain and swelling. Al- though—as it is with all new surgical tools and pro- tocols—surgery time is longer at the beginning when purely working with ultrasonic surgical devices time consumption reduces to normal values after a learn- ing curve.

Cite this paper

Troedhan, A. , Kurrek, A. and Wainwright, M. (2011) Ultrasonic piezotome surgery: is it a benefit for our patients and does it extend surgery time? A retrospective comparative study on the removal of 100 impacted mandibular 3rd molars. Open Journal of Stomatology, 1, 179-184. doi: 10.4236/ojst.2011.14027.

References

[1] Vercellotti, T. (2009) Essentials in piezosurgery: Clinical advantages in dentistry. 1st Edition, Quintessence Publishing Co., San Francisco.
[2] Horton, J.E., Tarpley, T.M.Jr. and Wood, L.D. (1975) The healing of surgial defects in alveolar bone produced with ultrasonic instrumentation, chisel and rotary bur. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 39, 536-546.
[3] McFall, T.A., Yamane, G.M. and Burnett, G.W. (1961) Comparison of the cutting effect on bone of an ultrasonic cutting device and rotary burs. Journal of Oral Surgery, Anesthesia and Hospital Dental Service, 19, 200-209.
[4] Aro, H., Kallioniemi, H., Aho, A.J. and Kellokumpu- Lehtinen, P. (1981) Ultrasonic device in bone cutting. A histological and scanning electron microscopical study. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 52, 5-10. doi:10.3109/17453678108991750
[5] Troedhan, A.C., Kurrek, A., Wainwright, M. and Jank, S. (2010) Hydrodynamic ultrasonic sinus floor elevation—An experimental study in sheep. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 68, 1125-1130. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.12.014
[6] Gleizal, A., Béra, J.-C., Lavandier, B. and Béziat, J.-L. (2007) Piezoelectric osteotomy: A new technique for bone surgery—Advantages in craniofacial surgery. Child’s Nervous System, 5, 509-513. doi:10.1007/s00381-006-0250-0
[7] Geha, A.H.J, Gleizal, A., Nimeskern, N. and Béziat, J.-L. (2006) Sensitivity of the inferior lip and chin following mandibular bilateral sagittal split osteotomy using piezosurgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 118, 1598- 1607. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000232360.08768.de
[8] Gleizal, A., Li, S.L., Pialat, J.-B. and Béziat, J.-L. (2006) Transcriptional expression of calvarial bone after treatment with low-intensity ultrasound: An in vitro study. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 32, 1569-1574. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.014

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.