Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2003
Marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in impacted third molar surgery: a prospective study.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suarez-Cunqueiro Maria Mercedes, Gutwald Ralf, Reichman Jan, Otero-Cepeda Xose Luis, Schmelzeisen Rainer
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: A clinical prospective study was carried out to compare 2 flap designs-marginal and paramarginal-that are used during impacted third molar surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven healthy patients (ages 17 to 31 years) who underwent surgical removal of 4 impacted third molars, including 54 lower and 54 upper, were included. A marginal flap was used in 1 randomly chosen half of the jaw, and a paramarginal flap was used in the other half. The influence of these flaps on wound healing, periodontal pocket depth of the adjacent second molar, pain, trismus, and swelling was studied.
RESULTS: Wound dehiscences developed in 8 paramarginal flap cases, whereas none occurred with the use of a marginal flap. The buccal and distal probing depths of the adjacent second molar were significantly bigger in marginal flaps at 5 and 10 days after surgery. However, the probing depth was similar with the use of both techniques at 3 months. Pain, trismus, and swelling were similar with both techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no advantages to the use of a paramarginal flap instead of a traditional marginal flap for removing impacted third molars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven healthy patients (ages 17 to 31 years) who underwent surgical removal of 4 impacted third molars, including 54 lower and 54 upper, were included. A marginal flap was used in 1 randomly chosen half of the jaw, and a paramarginal flap was used in the other half. The influence of these flaps on wound healing, periodontal pocket depth of the adjacent second molar, pain, trismus, and swelling was studied.
RESULTS: Wound dehiscences developed in 8 paramarginal flap cases, whereas none occurred with the use of a marginal flap. The buccal and distal probing depths of the adjacent second molar were significantly bigger in marginal flaps at 5 and 10 days after surgery. However, the probing depth was similar with the use of both techniques at 3 months. Pain, trismus, and swelling were similar with both techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no advantages to the use of a paramarginal flap instead of a traditional marginal flap for removing impacted third molars.