The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Study of Piezoelectric and Rotary Osteotomy Technique for Third Molar Impaction

Augustine Daniel, VJ Adarsh, Sulphi A Basheer, R Jay Govind, Akshatha Rao

Citation Information : Daniel A, Adarsh V, Basheer SA, Govind RJ, Rao A. Comparative Study of Piezoelectric and Rotary Osteotomy Technique for Third Molar Impaction. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (1):60-64.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1990

Published Online: 01-01-2017

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


Abstract

Introduction

Bone removal is necessary for extracting the third molars that are erupted, partially erupted, and/or impacted in bone. Hence, it is necessary to choose a surgical method or instruments that conform to anatomic landmarks and are based on physiological principles. Many authors have reported injuries to the adjacent tooth, especially the distal part of periodontium after removal of second molar. Hence, the present study was undertaken to assess and compare the surgical and postsurgical outcomes of third molar removal using piezoelectric surgery and rotary bur.

Materials and methods

A total of 30 healthy adult individuals who were in need of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molar tooth with ideal condition were included for the study. Individuals were divided randomly into study groups of 15 each, so that the difficulty of surgery will be the same in both the groups. Group I – piezoelectric osteotomy technique and group II – rotary osteotomy technique. The rotary device consists of a hand piece and a rotary speed ranging around 35,000 rpm was used. The piezoelectric device consists of a hand piece, and a frequency of 25 to 29 kHz with a microvibration of 60 to 200 mm/sec was used with a boosted working mode. Data were analyzed using unpaired t-test and qualitative data were analyzed using Fischer's exact test.

Results

The average age of the study subjects in the piezosurgery group and rotary group was 28.40 ± 2.69 and 30.06 ± 3.15 years respectively. The time taken for removal of impacted tooth by rotary bur was less than that by piezoelectric device, which was significant statistically (p < 0.05). Until the 4th postoperative day, severity of pain experienced was more in the rotary group, which was statistically significant (p < 0.005). Mouth opening was significantly better in the piezoelectric group as compared with rotary bur until the 7th postoperative day.

Conclusion

The piezosurgery method reduces postoperative pain, trismus, and swelling. Also, it may play an important role in increasing bone density within the extraction socket and decreasing the amount of bone loss of adjacent tooth in the distal aspect.

Clinical significance

In clinical practice, piezosurgery plays an important role because piezosurgery reduces postoperative pain, trismus, and also swelling.

How to cite this article

Basheer SA, Govind RJ, Daniel A, Sam G, Adarsh VJ, Rao A. Comparative Study of Piezoelectric and Rotary Osteotomy Technique for Third Molar Impaction. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(1):60-64.


PDF Share
  1. Piezoelectric versus conventional rotary techniques for impacted third molar extraction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine 2015 Oct;94(41):1-7.
  2. Piezosurgery vs high speed rotary handpiece: a comparison between the two techniques in the impacted third molar surgery. Oral Implantol 2013 Jan-Mar;6(1):5-10.
  3. Dry socket following surgical removal of impacted third molar in an Iranian population: incidence and risk factors. Niger J Clin Pract 2013 Oct-Dec;16(4):496-500.
  4. The effects of operator technique and bur design on temperature during osseous preparation for osteosynthesis self-tapping screws. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999 Aug;88(2):145-150.
  5. Clinical applications of ultrasonic instrumentation in the surgical removal of bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981 Mar;51(3):236-242.
  6. The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001 Dec;21(6):561-567.
  7. Comparison of a piezoelectric and a standard surgical handpiece in third molar surgery. 2010 Jan.
  8. Comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments for removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled clinical and radiographic trial. Int J Dent 2016;2016:1-7.
  9. Periodontal healing after mandibular third molar surgery – a comparison of distolingual alveolectomy and tooth division techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004 Jan;33(1):32-37.
  10. Periodontal healing after impacted lower third molar surgery. A retrospective study. Int J Oral Surg 1985 Feb;14(1):29-40.
  11. Effect of piezoelectric instruments on healing propensity of alveolar sockets following mandibular third molar extraction. J Dent Sci 2012 Sep;7(3):296-300.
  12. Periodontal healing after impacted lower third molar surgery in adolescents and adults. A prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991 Feb;20(1):18-24.
  13. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014 Sep;72(9):1647-1652.
  14. 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):556-561.
  15. Comparison of postoperative pain: piezoelectric device versus microdrill. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011 Sep;268(9):1279-1282.
  16. Ultrasonic osteotomy as a new technique in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007 Jun;36(6):493-500.
  17. A splitmouth 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):1890-1897.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.