Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotary Instruments on Third Molar Surgery
A Randomized Split Mouth Clinical Trial Comparing Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotary Instruments on Impacted Third Molar Surgery
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Istanbul, Turkey, 34854
- Marmara University School of Dentistry
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- ASA I-II
- Aged 18-35
- Symmetrical Class 2 Position B according to Winter and Pell-gregory classification
- Asymptomatic lower third molar tooth with the same difficulty according to the Yuasa difficulty index
Exclusion Criteria:
- Individuals who had systemic disease affecting bone or soft tissue metabolism
- Smokers (more than 10 cigarettes a day
- Alcohol dependent
- Systemic disease affecting bone or soft tissue metabolism
- Acute pericoronitis or acute periodontal disease at the time of operation, and used antibiotics due to acute infection
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Piezosurgery group
In the experimental group, a piezosurgery device was used to remove the bone surrounding the impacted third molar.
|
Piezosurgery used as an osteotomy device
|
|
Active Comparator: Conventional group
In the control group, conventional burs were used to remove the bone surrounding the impacted third molar.
|
Conventional burs used as an osteotomy device
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Oral Health-related Quality of Life
Time Frame: 14 days
|
Evaluated by OHIP-14
|
14 days
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in pain
Time Frame: 7 days
|
Postoperative pain was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from the absence of pain (score 0) to the most severe pain imaginable
|
7 days
|
|
Change in Mouth opening
Time Frame: 7 days
|
The distance between the mesio-incisal corners of the upper and lower central incisors was measured with the help of a ruler when the mouth opening was at its maximum.
|
7 days
|
|
Operation time
Time Frame: Intraoperative
|
The total time from the first incision of the operation site to the last suture was measured with the help of a digital stopwatch as the operation time.
|
Intraoperative
|
|
Change in facial swelling
Time Frame: 7 days
|
With the technique described by Neupert ;
|
7 days
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D'Aquino R, Festa VM. 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 Mar;41(2):e33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Aug 11.
- Rosa AL, Carneiro MG, Lavrador MA, Novaes AB Jr. Influence of flap design on periodontal healing of second molars after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Apr;93(4):404-7. doi: 10.1067/moe.2002.122823.
- Ren YF, Malmstrom HS. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Oct;65(10):1909-21. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.004.
- Cho H, David MC, Lynham AJ, Hsu E. Effectiveness of irrigation with chlorhexidine after removal of mandibular third molars: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan;56(1):54-59. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 6.
- Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;72(9):1647-52. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.04.032. Epub 2014 May 6.
- Ge J, Yang C, Zheng JW, He DM, Zheng LY, Hu YK. Four osteotomy methods with piezosurgery to remove complicated mandibular third molars: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;72(11):2126-33. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.028. Epub 2014 Jun 14.
- Barone A, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Rispoli L, Calvo JL, Covani U. A randomized clinical evaluation of ultrasound bone surgery versus traditional rotary instruments in lower third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Feb;68(2):330-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.053. Epub 2010 Jan 15. Erratum In: J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Apr 28;:
- Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A. 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):556-61. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.010. Epub 2011 Nov 15.
- Sortino F, Pedulla E, Masoli V. The piezoelectric and rotatory osteotomy technique in impacted third molar surgery: comparison of postoperative recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Dec;66(12):2444-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.004.
- Mantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, Ferrero L, Gallesio G, Mozzati M, Russo A, Scully C, Carossa S. A split-mouth 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):1890-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 May 13.
- Cicciu M, Stacchi C, Fiorillo L, Cervino G, Troiano G, Vercellotti T, Herford AS, Galindo-Moreno P, Di Lenarda R. Piezoelectric bone surgery for impacted lower third molar extraction compared with conventional rotary instruments: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Jan;50(1):121-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.03.008. Epub 2020 Apr 11.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimate)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- MUDHF_FB_0001
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Sharing Time Frame
IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type
- Study Protocol
- Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.