1Post Graduate, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3Professor & Head, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan
5Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Online published on 20 August, 2016.
To clinically evaluate the best technique for bone removal covering the impacted mandibular third molar by evaluating and comparing three different techniques (lingual split, using chisel and mallet, buccal approach techniques, using rotary instruments). The objectives were to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of three different techniques and to study the post-operative complications of three different techniques.
The study comprised of 30 impacted mandibular third molar teeth. Patients were divided in three groups and bone covering the third molar was removed by the Lingual split technique using chisel and mallet, Buccal approach technique using chisel and mallet, and Buccal approach technique using rotary instruments.
The significant difference was found in total surgical time taken, it was significantly minimum in lingual split technique. Post-operative swelling, pain & trismus for one or two weeks were more in buccal approach using rotary instrument followed by buccal approach using chisel & mallet and was minimum in lingual split technique.
The study concluded that lingual split technique using chisel and mallet is found to be better among all three techniques used followed by buccal approach using chisel and mallet and the buccal approach technique using rotary instrument.
Lingual split technique, paresthesia, trismus
