The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Two Different Flap Designs and Postoperative Outcome in the Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar

Shabeer Ahamed, A Rabi, PM Mohamed Haris, Deepu M Panickal, Venith J Pulikkottil, KT Muhamed Haris

Citation Information : Ahamed S, Rabi A, Haris PM, Panickal DM, Pulikkottil VJ, Haris KM. Comparative Evaluation of Two Different Flap Designs and Postoperative Outcome in the Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (9):807-811.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2131

Published Online: 00-09-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study is to compare triangular and envelope flap designs and the postoperative outcome in the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

Materials and methods

A total of 50 participants were assessed clinically and were divided randomly into two groups. Group I (participants operated by triangular flap) and group II (participants operated by envelope flap), with 25 participants each between the age group of 20 and 30 years. Patient satisfaction was assessed subjectively using a graded scale from very satisfied to very unsatisfied. The degree of pain was recorded for 7 days with reference to predefined values on visual analog scale (VAS). Trismus was evaluated on the day 3, day 5, and day 7 of the postoperative period in millimeters. Quantitative data were analyzed by unpaired t-test and qualitative data were by Fischer's exact test.

Results

The mean overall age is 25.5 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups with respect to age. There was no significant association between the patient satisfaction and flap type (p = 0.684). A significant difference between the study groups on 4th, 5th, and 6th days with respect to pain was observed, wherein fewer subjects operated with triangular flap reported pain. A highly significant difference in mouth opening was observed, with triangular flap group participants having a higher mouth opening than envelope flap subjects on day 7.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that participants operated by triangular flap had a better mouth opening postoperatively compared with envelope flap participants, whereas there were no significant differences in patient satisfaction and pain scores at the end of the 7th day after third molar surgery.

Clinical significance

Flap design is a significant factor in the surgical removal of impacted third molar, and it influences the severity of complications. Furthermore, it is important for allowing optimal visibility and access to the impacted tooth and also for subsequent healing of the surgically created defect.

How to cite this article

Rabi A, Haris PMM, Panickal DM, Ahamed S, Pulikkottil VJ, Haris KTM. Comparative Evaluation of Two Different Flap Designs and Postoperative Outcome in the Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(9):807-811.


PDF Share
  1. Comparison of 2 different flap techniques in the surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. Turk J Med Sci 2013 Nov;43:891-898.
  2. An alternative surgical flap design for impacted third molars: a comparison of two different surgical techniques. SADJ 2010 Jul;65(6):246, 248-251.
  3. Marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in impacted third molar surgery: a prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003 Apr;95(4):403-408.
  4. To compare standard incision and comma shaped incision and its influence on post-operative complications in surgical removal of impacted third molars. J Clin Diagn Res 2013 Jul;7(7):1514-1518.
  5. Comparison of two incision designs for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar: a randomized comparative clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2014 May;5(2):170-174.
  6. Flap design and mandibular third molar surgery: a split mouth randomized clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012 Aug;41(8):1020-1024.
  7. Effect of two triangular flap designs for removal of impacted third molar on maximal mouth opening. Pak Oral Dent J 2015 Jun;35(2):190-193.
  8. Comparative analysis of two flap designs for extraction of mandibular third molar. J Craniofac Surg 2011 May;22(3):1003-1007.
  9. The different types of flaps in the surgical relations of the third impacted molars-literature review. Dentistry 2017 Mar;7(4):425.
  10. The flap design of third molar surgery: an overview. Int J Med Health Res 2015 Oct;1(3):32-35.
  11. Comparison of the influence of two different flap designs on pain and swelling after surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. J Am Sci 2014;10(4s):88-93.
  12. Non surgical predicting factors for patient satisfaction after third molar surgery. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2016 Mar;21(2):e201-e205.
  13. Influence of two different flap designs on incidence of pain, swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis in the week following third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007 Jul;104(1):e1-e6.
  14. Comparison of two different flap designs in the surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010 Nov;39(11):1091-1096.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.