Clinical trial NCT06262841: Post-Surgical Morbidity and Bone Healing of Impacted Lower Third Molars: Piezosurgery vs. Conventional Instruments
Official title: 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
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Impacted Third Molar Tooth
Lead sponsor: Ankara University
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2024-02-16
Enrollment: 21
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 35
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

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.

Detailed description: The aim of our study is to comparatively evaluate the duration of the operation and the pain, trismus, edema and healing of the alveolar bone that occur after tooth extraction in surgical extractions of impacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and traditional rotary instruments.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* 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

Exclusion Criteria:

* 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

Primary outcomes:
measure: Change in Oral Health-related Quality of Life
timeFrame: Time Frame: 14 days
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Change in pain
timeFrame: 7 days
measure: Change in Mouth opening
timeFrame: 7 days
measure: Operation time
timeFrame: Intraoperative
measure: Change in facial swelling
timeFrame: 7 days
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Ankara
country: Turkey
facility: Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry
state: Çankaya
Study officials:
affiliation: Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry
name: Murat K Erdem, PhD, DDS
role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
References:
citation: 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.
citation: Rosa 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.
citation: Ren 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.
citation: Piersanti 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.
citation: Cho 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.
citation: Cicciu 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.
citation: Mantovani 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.
citation: Sortino 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.
citation: Goyal 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.
citation: Barone 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.
citation: Ge 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.