The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Conventional Rotary Technique and Piezosurgical Technique in the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar: A Comparative Study

P Shameem Hamza, Sachin Aslam, A Roshni, Mathew Pynummoottil Cherian, K Akhila

Keywords : Conventional, Mandibular, Pain, Piezoelectric, Rotary, Trismus

Citation Information : Hamza PS, Aslam S, Roshni A, Cherian MP, Akhila K. Conventional Rotary Technique and Piezosurgical Technique in the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (2):97-102.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3469

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the operating time, postoperative pain, edema, trismus, and patient acceptance following surgical removal of impacted third molar using piezosurgery and conventional rotary technique. Materials and methods: About 42 patients with impacted mesioangular mandibular third molars were included in this study. Subjects are divided into two groups: group I (treated with conventional rotary technique) and group II (treated with piezosurgery). Duration of surgery, pain, trismus, and swelling were assessed. The patients were evaluated on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days. Results: Postoperative pain, trismus, and edema were reduced with piezosurgery compared with conventional technique. Even though the duration of time was longer with piezosurgery, patient comfort was found to be better. Conclusion: Piezosurgery is a meticulous and innovative ultrasonic technique with selective bone cutting and better postoperative outcomes. However, it is expensive, and the operating time is prolonged. Clinical significance: Piezosurgery is an alternative in the surgical removal of third molars as it ensures precise and selective cutting, with no injury to the surrounding soft tissues. Postoperative outcome and patient acceptance are improved with piezosurgery.

  1. Blondeau F, Daniel NG. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: postoperative complications and their risk factors. J Can Dent Assoc 2007;73(4):325. PMID:17484797.
  2. Kumar S, Sarumathi T, Veerabahu M, et al. To Compare standard incision and comma shaped incision and its influence on postoperative complications in surgical removal of impacted third molars. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7(7):1514–1518. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6200.3135.
  3. Mistry FK, Hegde ND, Hegde MN. Postsurgical consequences in lower third molar surgical extraction using micromotor and piezosurgery. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6(2):251–259. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.200334.
  4. Keyhan SO, Fallahi HR, Cheshmi B, et al. Use of piezoelectric surgery and Er:YAG laser: Which one is more effective during impacted third molar surgery?. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;41(1):29. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-019-0212-6.
  5. Spinelli G, Lazzeri D, Conti M, et al. Comparison of piezosurgery and traditional saw in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42(7):1211–1220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.02.011.
  6. Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, et al. 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;50(6):556–561. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.010.
  7. Pappalardo S, Guarnieri R. Randomized clinical study comparing piezosurgery and conventional rotatory surgery in mandibular cyst enucleation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42(5):e80–e85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.06.013.
  8. Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, et al. 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;41(2):e33–e38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.07.007.
  9. Chang HH, Lee MS, Hsu YC, et al. Comparison of clinical parameters and environmental noise levels between regular surgery and piezosurgery for extraction of impacted third molars. J Formos Med Assoc 2015;114(10):929–935. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2014.02.003.
  10. Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, et al. Piezoelectric versus conventional rotary techniques for impacted third molar extraction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine 2015;94(41):e1685. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001685.
  11. Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M. 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 J Stomatol 2011;1(4):179–184. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2011.14027.
  12. Baqain ZH, Al-Shafii A, Hamdan AA, et al. Flap design and mandibular third molar surgery: A split mouth randomized clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41(8):1020–1024. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.02.011.
  13. Al-Moraissi EA, Elmansi YA, Al-Sharaee YA, et al. Does the piezoelectric surgical technique produce fewer postoperative sequelae after lower third molar surgery than conventional rotary instruments? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45(3):383–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.10.005.
  14. Al-Delayme RM. Randomized clinical study comparing piezoelectric surgery with conventional rotatory osteotomy in mandibular third molars surgeries. Saudi Dent J 2021;33(1):11–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.11.010.
  15. Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, et al. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72(9):1647–1652. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.04.032.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.