Printer Friendly

Outcome of management of mandibular third molar impaction by comparing two different flap designs.

Byline: MUHAMMAD ASIF SHAHZAD M RAFIQUE CHATHA and AQIB SOHAIL

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of management of mandibular third molar impaction in terms of wound healing and periodontal probing depth of the adjacent second molar in patients treated by marginal flap versus paramarginal flap. This quasi experimental study consisted of sixty patients divided into two groups of thirty each (ages 18 to 30 years) who required surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Periodontal probing depth of the adjacent second molar was recorded preoperatively. A marginal flap was used in one randomly chosen half of the patient's sample and a paramarginal flap was used in the other half. The influence of these flaps on wound healing and periodontal probing depth of the adjacent second molar was studied postoperatively. No wound dehiscence occurred with the use of marginal flap or the paramarginal flap at 1 and 2 weeks after surgery (Pgreater than 0.05). The buccal and distal probing depths of the adjacent second molar showed no significant difference between marginal flap and paramarginal flap before surgery and at 2 weeks and 4 weeks after surgery (Pgreater than 0.05). No significant difference was found with the use of paramarginal flap instead of traditional marginal flap in the removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

Key Words: Impacted mandibular third molar marginal flap paramarginal flap.

INTRODUCTION

The surgical removal of an impacted mandibular third molar is a common procedure associated with various techniques and anecdotal opinion. Though a large majority of impacted teeth are removed surgical- ly1 many of them can be extracted through a closed technique using extraction forceps.

Surgical extraction of mandibular third molar in- volves the manipulation of both soft and hard tissues due to which the patient usually experiences pain and limited mouth opening (trismus) in the early postop- erative period. Some patients also have periodontal disease and even complicated wound healing in the later postoperative period.

Periodontal evaluation after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars has raised the questions concerning the direct effect of extraction on the health of the adjacent second molar. There may be

a periodontal pocket loss of clinical attachment of the gingiva or the bone loss of the second molar.2-4 Several studies have been undertaken on the different flap techniques to prevent the periodontal complications to the adjacent second molar.56 The present study evalu- ates the outcome of management of mandibular third molar impaction by marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in terms of wound healing and periodontal pocket depth of adjacent second molar after surgical removal of mandibular third molar.

METHODOLOGY

The current study consisted of sixty patients and was carried out at Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit of Punjab Dental Hospital Lahore from June 2006 to March 2007. Inclusion criteria: Patients with no his- tory of medical illness or taking any medication that could influence the surgical procedure or postoperative wound healing non-smokers and healthy dental and periodontal status. An attempt was made to include only those mandibular third molars that were of com- parable technical difficulty positioning and angulations as seen on periapical and panoramic radiographs.

The demographic data were recorded and informed consent was taken. A thorough history was taken. Patients were assessed clinically and were divided into two groups A and B randomly by using random

numbers table. Those patients operated by using the marginal flap and bone cutting were kept under group A. Patients operated by using the paramarginal flap and bone cutting were included in group B. Periodontal pocket depth was measured by using the periodontal measuring probe( UNC 15) from the free gingival margin to the bottom of the pocket in both groups.

Patients were operated under local anesthesia;

2% lidocaine with 1:100000 adrenaline (MedicaineR; Houns Co; Ltd; Korea). A standard surgical procedure was followed. The patients were operated by the same operator and operative protocol. The marginal flap in- cision started near the mesiobuccal edge of the second molar to its distal surface. A relieving incision was made in the mesial region without cutting the interdental papilla. Another relieving incision was made along the mandibular ramus. (Fig 1). The paramarginal flap incision was similar to that used with the marginal flap; however instead of making a sulcular incision in the second molar an incision was made while maintain- ing a distance of 2 mm from the free gingival margin (Fig 2).

Then a full thickness mucoperiosteal flap was el- evated. Minimum ostectomy and tooth sectioning was performed by using the round bur and the fissure bur respectively while preserving the distal bone adjacent to the second molar. The flap was approximated by in- terrupted sutures with 3/0 mersilk (Ethicon). After the procedure the patients were given general instructions. All patients were given Amoxicillin (500mg 3 times a day for 7 days) diclofenac (50mg 3 times a day for 3 days) and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouth rinses for 7 days. Wound dehiscence was noted at seventh postoperative day. The wound was considered to be dehisced if there was gaping along the entire incision

line.7 Periodontal pocket depth was measured from the free gingival margin to the bottom of the pocket at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively.

DATA ENTRY AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data entry package was developed using SPSS version 17. Data collection and data entry were done simultaneously and tabulation plan was developed.

The qualitative variables in the demographic data like gender and mandibular side of impaction were presented as proportions and percentages and quanti- tative variable like age were presented as means and standard deviations. The comparison of the outcome of the two groups regarding wound healing was assessed by using chi square test. The periodontal pocket depth of the adjacent second molar was compared for the marginal flap and paramarginal flap and as there was a difference it was tested for significance by t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients divided into 2 groups of 30 patients of marginal flap and paramarginal flap each were included in our study sample.

Marginal flap group included patients of ages rang- ing between 18 to 30 years (mean/SD 23.43+/-3.31). While patients in paramarginal flap group were of ages ranging between 18 to 30 years (mean/SD 24.17+/-3.15). The results regarding the wound healing showed no statistical difference between the two groups at 1 week and 2 weeks after surgery as both groups showed the same results regarding uncomplicated wound healing and no wound dehiscence was found (Table 1).

TABLE 1: WOUND HEALING IN MARGINAL VERSUS PARAMARGINAL FLAP GROUPS

Wound Healing Flap type###Uncomplicated Wound healing###Wound dehiscence###Total

At 1 and 2 weeks###Marginal###30###0###30

At 1 and 2 weeks###Paramarginal###30###0###30

###Total###60###0###60

TABLE 2: PREOPERATIVE AND POSTOPERATIVE PROBING DEPTHS ON THE BUCCAL AND

DISTAL SURFACES OF ADJACENT SECOND MOLAR IN MARGINAL VERSUS PARAMARGINAL FLAP

###GROUPS

Probing depths Flap type###Before Surgery###2 weeks after surgery###4 weeks after surgery

Buccal Probing###Marginal###2.56+/-0.31###3.23+/-0.29###2.28+/-0.28

Depth (mm)###(n=30)

(Mean/SD)###Paramarginal###2.44+/-0.30###3.10+/-0.36###2.27+/-0.29

###(n=30)

Distal Probing###Marginal###3.52+/-0.24###4.10+/-0.25###3.25+/-0.34

Depth (mm)###(n=30)

(Mean/SD)###Paramarginal###3.43+/-0.31###3.98+/-0.31###3.23+/-0.31

###(n=30)

The values for periodontal probing depth on the buccal and distal surface of adjacent second molar before surgery and at 2 weeks and 4 weeks after sur- gery did not indicate significant differences between the marginal and paramarginal groups. However both techniques had the following evolution: a significant increase in probing depth at 2 weeks after surgery (Pless than 0.001) and a significant decrease at 4 weeks after surgery (Pless than 0.001). (Table 2)

DISCUSSION

Third molar surgery has been associated with a variety of complications. Flap design is one of the factors influencing the severity of these complications.7-10 For this reason two different flap designs were compared: marginal flap which is the traditional technique for third molar surgery and paramarginal flap which is a variation of the latter.

It was found that the results regarding primary wound healing were not different for each of these flap designs and also similar levels of periodontal pocket depth of the adjacent second molar were found for both techniques during the study.

The results of present study were not in agreement with Jakse et al7 study in regards that flap design influences primary wound healing after third molar surgery. His study confirmed evidence that the flap design in lower third molar surgery considerably in- fluences primary wound healing.

In present study no statistical difference regard- ing wound dehiscence was found on comparing the marginal and paramarginal flaps. This could be due to the use of triangular mucoperiosteal flaps used in both techniques.

Periodontal pocket formation in the second molar is a common postoperative complication in third mo- lar surgery. Several explanations for this have been advanced.10-15 In the current study the marginal and the paramarginal flap created a bigger postoperative pocket in terms of the distal and buccal probing depths at 2 weeks after surgery as compared to before sur- gery. With respect to probing depth in both groups of patients it was found that measurement before third molar surgery and 4 weeks after surgery did not change significantly. Nevertheless several clinical studies have found an increase in pocket depth and a bony defect on the distal surface of the second molar after third molar removal.210 In a retrospective study Kugelberg et al2 found that 2 years after lower third molar surgery 43.3% of the cases had probing depths of 7 mm or more and 32.1% had intrabony defects of 4 mm or more on the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar. In contrast Groves and Moore16 found a decreased pocket depth after surgery. Quee et al3 and Schofield et al4 also reported no differences in periodontal healing related to flap design. Other studies have reported that exposure of the alveolar bone to the buccal cavity even without surgical procedures causes bone resorption.617-19 Considering this it would be expected that the paramarginal flap would provide better results at least for bone level because this flap preserves a strip of mucosa on the buccal surface of the second molars. There are two possible explanations for why this did not happen. First it is possible that bone resorption is more intense and clinically important in areas where the alveolar bone is thinner such as in the anterior region of the mandible and all of the maxilla but not at the buccal region of the mandibular second molars.

Second during the extraction of teeth with a great mesiodistal or horizontal angulation it was observed that both the ostectomy as well as the application of dental elevators traumatized the strip of mucosa preserved by the paramarginal flap. It is possible that this contributed to delayed periodontal healing and explains the results observed with the flap.

Ash20 cautioned that periodontal pathology affecting the distal aspect of second molars with adjacent third molars had been overlooked. The absence of increased pocket depth at 4 weeks in this study was not a conse- quence of flap design. Instead it might be caused by the conservative surgical technique used which maintained the distal bone to the second molar in every case and by the youthfulness of the study group. In accord with this some authors10 suggested that increased second molar pocket depth is related to ostectomy. However other authors21-24 believe that flap design and patient age might have an effect on second molar periodontal status. There could also be more complications when there was generalized inflammation.10 As the patients in our study were between 18 and 30 years of age and had no periodontal disease before surgery these two variables did not interfere in the results.

REFERENCES

1 Shepherd JP Brickley M. Surgical removal of third molars. Br

Med J 1994; 309: 620-21.

2 Kugelberg CF Ahkstrom U Ericson S Hugoson A. Periodontal healing after impacted lower third molar surgery. Int Oral Surg

1985; 14: 29-40.

3 Quee TAC Gosseline D Millar EP Stamm JW. Surgical removal of the fully impacted mandibular third molar. The influence of flap design and alveolar bone height on the periodontal status of the second molar. J Periodontal 1985; 56: 625-30.

4 Schofield IDF Kogon SL Donner A. Long term comparison of two surgical flap designs for third molar surgery on the health of the periodontal tissue of the second molar. 1988; 54: 689-91.

5 Montero J Mazzaglia G. Effect of removing an impacted mandibular third molar on the periodontal status of the mandibular second molar. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69:

2691-7.

6 Stephens RJ App GR Foreman DW. Periodontal evaluation of two mucoperiosteal flaps used in removing impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1983; 41: 719-24.

7 Jakse N Bankaoglu V Wimmer G Eskici A Pertl C. Primary wound healing after lower third molar surgery. Evaluation of

2 different flap designs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral

Radiol Endod 2002; 93: 7-12.

8 Silva JL Jardim EC dos Santos PL Pereira FP Garcia Junior IR Poi WR. Comparative analysis of two flap designs for extraction of mandibular third molar. J Craniofac Surg

2011; 22: 1003-7.

9 Baqain ZH Al-Shafii A Hamdan AA Sawair FA. Flap design and mandibular third molar surgery: A split mouth randomized clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 1020-24.

10 Woolf RH Malmquist JP Wright WH. Third molar extractions:

periodontal implication of two flap designs. Gen Dent 1978; 26:

52-6.

11 Peng KY Tseng YC Shen EC Chiu SC Fu E Huang YW.

Mandibular second molar periodontal status after third molar extraction. J Periodontol 2001; 70: 1630-34.

12 Arta SA Kheyradin RP Mesgarzadeh AH Hassanbaglu B.

Comparison of the influence of two flap designs on periodontal healing after surgical extraction of impacted third molars. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2011; 5(1): 1-4.

13 Motamedi MH. A technique to manage gingival complications of third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 90: 140-43.

14 Dodson TB. Reconstruction of alveolar bone defects after extraction of mandibular third molars: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 82: 241-7.

15 Faria AI Gallas Forreirid M Lopez Raton M. Mandibular second molar periodontal healing after impacted third molar extraction in young adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70: 2732-41.

16 Groves BJ Moore JR. The periodontal implications of flap design

in lower third molar extractions. Dent Pract Dent Rec 1970; 20:

297-304.

17 Wood DL Hoag PM Donnenfeld W Rosenfeld LD. Alveolar crest reduction following full and partial thickness flaps. J Periodontol 1972; 43: 141-4.

18 Yaffe A Fine N Binderman I. Regional accelerated phenom- enon in the mandible following mucoperiosteal flap surgery. J Periodontol 1994; 65: 79-83.

19 Yaffe A Iztkovich M Earon Y Lilov R Binderman I. Local delivery of an amino bisphosphonate prevents the resorptive phase of alveolar bone following mucoperiosteal flap surgery in rats. J Periodontol 1997; 68: 884-9.

20 Ash M Costich ER Hayward JR. A study of periodontal hazards of third molars. J Periodontol 1962; 33: 209-19.

21 Elter JR Offenbacher S White RP Beck JD. Third molars associated with periodontal pathology in older Americans. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 179-84.

22 Kugelberg CF Ahlstrom U Ericson S Hugoson A Thilander H. The influence of anatomical pathophysiological and other factor on periodontal healing after impacted lower third molar surgery. A multiple regression analysis. J Clin Periodontol 1991;

18: 37-43.

23 Kugelberg CF Ahlstrom U Ericson S Hugoson A Kvint.

Periodontal healing after impacted lower third molar surgery in adolescents and adults. A prospective study. Int Oral Surg

1991; 20: 18-24.

24 Marmary Y Bryer L Tzukert A Feller L. Alveolar bone repair following extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1985; 60: 324-6.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Muhammad Asif Shahzad; M Rafique Chatha; Aqib Sohail
Publication:Pakistan Oral and Dental Journal
Article Type:Clinical report
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Jun 30, 2014
Words:2696
Previous Article:Frequency and pattern of presentation of neuralgia inducing cavitational osteonecrosis.
Next Article:Etiology and incidence of maxillofacial skeletal injuries at tertiary care hospital, Larkana, Pakistan.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters