Dataset Information

Sutureless socket technique after removal of third molars: a multicentric, open, randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although wisdom-tooth extraction is a routine intervention, the postoperative period remains marked by local inflammation classically manifesting as pain, edema and trismus. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the best operative techniques, particularly for the mucosal closure stage on impacted mandibular wisdom teeth.

Methods

This parallel, randomized, non-blinded study compared pain following removal of impacted third molars, with and without sutures. Patients were electronically allocated 1:1 to extraction with versus without sutures. Patients ≥ 14 years' old scheduled for extraction of four impacted wisdom teeth under general anesthesia at three French hospitals were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included taking antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, coagulation disorders or immunosuppression, and planned orofacial surgical procedures or emergency pain/infection. The primary objective was pain evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale on Day 3. Secondary outcomes were edema, trismus, healing, complications, painkiller consumption and quality of life on Day 3 and 31.

Results

Between June 2016 and November 2018, 100 patients were randomized. Finally, 44 patients in the Suture group and 50 patients in the Without Suture group were analyzed. Mean age was 16.5 years and 66.6% of patients were female. After adjustment on center, age and smoking, no statistical difference was seen between groups for pain on Day 3 (p = 0.904). No differences were seen for swelling, trismus, consumption of painkillers, healing, complications or quality of life. Smokers had a 3.65 times higher complications rate (p = 0.0244).

Conclusions

Sutureless removal of third molars is thus a reliable technique without negative consequence on outcomes, and allows shorter operating time. Smoking is a risk factor for postoperative complications. Trial registration www.

Clinicaltrials

gov (NCT02583997), registered 22/10/2015.

SUBMITTER: Takadoum S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9233809 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis paper aims to evaluate the decision-making of wisdom teeth extractions (M3s extraction) and the epidemiological profile in the targeted population.Materials and methodThis was a prospective analysis study of 106 patients at our hospital august 20, 1953 specialist hospital, which is a referral center between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2021. The patients are divided into 2 groups according decision-making of wisdom teeth removal based on scientific evidence if it's right or wrong.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding sex (P = 0.478), educational level (P = 0.718), or working status (P = 0.606). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding general co-morbidity (P = 1.00) or oral history (P = 0.28). The mean age of the sample was 32.12 years (SD = 11.337 years, range = 17-70 years, median = 30 -years). We reported that only 28% of the third molars were surgically extracted. We included in Group (I), 81 patients who were treated for third molars removal which the decision-making was justified. In Group (II), 25 patients were treated for third molars removal which the decision-making was unjustified. Group (I) comprised 30 men and 51 women with a mean age of 30 years. Group (II) comprised 7 men and 18 women with a mean age of 27 years. The assessment of surgical outcomes (operating time, blood loss, hospital stay) showed no difference between groups.DiscussionMonitoring asymptomatic wisdom teeth appears to be an appropriate strategy. Regarding retention versus prophylactic extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth, decision-making should be based on the best evidence combined with clinical experience.76.4% had a reason for extraction that was justified. The reasons why extraction of the wisdom tooth was not justified in our study population was either: extraction for prophylaxis or in the case of asymptomatic non-pathological third molars; without scientific evidence.ConclusionThis subject, which is perpetually debated, requires updating dental health authorities by evaluating new conservative procedures.

Project description:The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare the risks and benefits of germectomy and delayed removal of third molars and develop a patient management algorithm for second molar eruption in syndrome/incompliant patients. A literature search was performed in the following databases; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Last search was done on July 2nd, 2018 including articles published from the last 18 years. The search aimed to identify all relevant studies written in English language. Gray literature was excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated with specific predetermined criteria. This systematic literature review was reported according to the PRISMA-P statement and was registered in the PROSPERO database with the following protocol ID: 104261. Literature search war performed on July 2018 and updated on February 2019. A total of 1610 articles were screened. After abstract screening and discarding duplicates, 86 full-text articles were obtained and subjected to additional evaluation. Four articles were included in the review. Three studies were considered as having a medium risk of bias and one was assessed as at high risk. Due to the heterogeneity of presenting results and a very low number of included studies a quantitative analysis was not possible. Only qualitative analysis was made. Considering the limited number of studies included and the level of risk of bias there is no sufficient evidence to state the benefits of preventive removal of impacted third molars, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene due to intellectual disability. Early germectomy represents an elective approach of pathologic alteration of tooth germ; orthodontic issues meet appropriate indication for a delayed removal. Given the best evidence-based information regarding patients' medical condition, we highlight the need to provide an ethical-based comprehensive approach in the diagnostic workflow and the assessment of treatment outcome.

Project description:BackgroundFor treating deep caries lesions, selective or stepwise (one- and two-step) incomplete excavation seems advantageous compared with complete caries removal. However, current evidence regarding the success, as defined by not requiring any retreatments, or survival of teeth after different excavations is insufficient for definitive recommendation, especially when treating deciduous teeth. Moreover, restoration integrity has not been comparatively analyzed longitudinally, and neither patients', dentists' or parents' preferences nor the clinical long-term costs emanating from both initial and retreatments have been reported yet.Methods/designThe planned study is a prospective multicenter, two-arm parallel group, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing selective and stepwise excavation in deciduous molars with deep, active caries lesions without pulpal symptoms. We will recruit 300 children aged between three and nine-years-old with a minimum of one such molar. Patients participating in another study, or those with systemic diseases, disabilities or known allergies to used materials as well patients with teeth expected to exfoliate within the next 18 months will be excluded. After inclusion, sequence generation will be performed. Initial treatment will follow dental routine. During excavation, leathery, moist and reasonably soft dentin will be left in proximity to the pulp followed by adhesive restoration of the cavity. Afterwards, patients', dentists' and parents' subjective assessment of the treatment will be recorded using visual analogue or Likert scales. Re-examination will be performed after six months, and only then teeth will be allocated to one of the two interventions. Selectively excavated teeth will not be treated further, whilst for stepwise caries removal, a second excavation will be performed until only hard dentin remains. Clinical re-evaluations will be performed after 12, 24 and 36 months. Restorations will be reassessed using modified Ryge criteria. Objectively or subjectively required retreatments will determine success and survival. Retreatments will be evaluated both subjectively and regarding generated costs.DiscussionBased on the results of the trial, decision-making for treating deep caries lesions in deciduous molars based on multiple criteria should be feasible.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02232828 (registered on 29 November 2014).

Project description:PurposeThis randomized controlled clinical trial compared soft tissue changes following a novel vestibular atraumatic extraction technique (test group) versus the conventional incisal atraumatic extraction approach (control group) while implementing the vestibular socket therapy for immediate implant placement.MethodsThirty patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring atraumatic extraction were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either test or control. Vertical soft tissue alterations in mm were measured at baseline and 12 months post-restoration using intraoral digital scans at three reference points, distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla, as well as pink esthetic scores (PESs) after 12 months.ResultsVestibular extraction technique showed significant soft tissue improvement and creeping when compared to incisal extraction (P < 0.05). The test group showed soft tissue measurements with a mean (± SD) of 0.26 (± 0.58), 0.39 (± 0.64), and 0.05 (± 0.37) mm for the mesial papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and distal papilla respectively. While the incisal extraction technique demonstrated gingival recession at the distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla of - 0.37 (± 0.54) mm, - 0.32 (± 0.68) mm, and - 0.39 (± 0.59) mm respectively. The overall PESs after 12 months were 12.67 (± 1.59) in vestibular extraction group, while incisal extraction group was 11.40 (± 1.40), with significant difference between them (P = 0.03).ConclusionThis investigation suggests that both studied techniques were successful in the atraumatic extraction of hopeless severely damaged teeth. The novel vestibular extraction technique might be considered an alternative reliable atraumatic extraction approach compared to the conventional incisal extraction when performing the vestibular socket protocol for immediate implant placement with soft tissue enhancement.

Project description:Considering the adverse effects of nonimpacted third molars (N-M3s) on the periodontal health of adjacent second molars (M2s), the removal of N-M3s may be beneficial to the periodontal health of their neighbors. This study aimed to investigate the clinical, immunological, and microbiological changes of the periodontal condition around M2s following removal of neighboring N-M3s across a 6-month period. Subjects with at least one quadrant containing an intact first molar (M1), M2, and N-M3 were screened and those who met the inclusion criteria and decided to receive N-M3 extraction were recruited in the following investigation. M2 periodontal condition was interrogated before M3 extraction (baseline) and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Improvements in clinical periodontal indexes of M2s in response to their adjacent N-M3 removal, along with changes in inflammatory biomarkers among gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and the composition of subgingival plaque collected from the distal sites of the M2s of the targeted quadrant were parallelly analyzed. Complete data of 26 tooth extraction patients across the follow-up period were successfully obtained and subsequently applied for statistical analysis. Compared to the baseline, the periodontal condition of M2s was significantly changed 6 months after N-M3 removal; specifically, the probing depth of M2s significantly reduced (P < 0.001), the matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 concentration involved in GCF significantly decreased (P = 0.025), and the abundance of the pathogenic genera unidentified Prevotellaceae and Streptococcus significantly decreased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). We concluded that N-M3 removal was associated with superior clinical indexes, decreased GCF inflammatory biomarkers, and reduced pathogenic microbiome distribution within the subgingival plaque. Although the retention or removal of N-M3s continues to be controversial, our findings provide additional evidence that medical decisions should be made as early as possible or at least before the neighboring teeth are irretrievably damaged.