Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 458–465 | Cite as

Comparative Analysis of Radiosurgery and Scalpel Blade Surgery in Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Incisions: a Clinical Trial

  • Vimal KaliaEmail author
  • Nayla Siddiqui
  • Geeta Kalra
Comparative Study



This study aims to compare the outcome of radiosurgically assisted incision technique with the conventional scalpel blade technique in impacted mandibular third molar incisions.


On 100 patients (50 patients each in GROUP R and GROUP S) with impacted mandibular third molar, incisions were given using radio surgical and scalpel technique, respectively. Impacted third molars were classified according to Winter’s classification. Two types of incisions (Ward’s and modified Ward’s) were performed. Results were evaluated considering various parameters like surgical ease, field of surgery, odour, bleeding, discomfort/pain, post-operative analgesic intake and healing in both groups.


In our study, mean age of patient was 25.30 years, 54% were females and 46% males; mesioangular was the most common type of impaction, and the average length of incision was 3.105 ± 0.546 cm. There was a significant statistical difference (p < 0.01) in the five measure moments (field of surgery, surgical ease, intra-operative bleeding, odour and post-operative analgesic intake at 3–5th day) between the impacted molars operated with scalpel and the ones done with radiosurgery. There was statistically insignificant difference in pain/discomfort, healing and post-operative analgesic intake at 1st and 7–10th day.


Radiosurgery was very effective in providing clear field of surgery, surgical ease and created less intra-operative bleeding than scalpel blade surgery making day to day minor oral surgery less stress full and productive.


Radiosurgery Electrosurgery Tissue contouring system Impacted mandibular molars 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participant or animals performed by any of the author.

Supplementary material

12663_2017_1071_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1624 kb)


  1. 1.
    Manivannan N, Ahathya RS, Rajaram PC (2013) Scalpel versus electrosurgery: comparison of gingival perfusion status using ultrasound Doppler flowmetry. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 5(2):5154–5159Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanghirian LM (1949) Electrosurgical gingivoplasty. J Am Dent Assoc 38(1):67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malik NA (2012) Minor oral surgical procedures. In: Malik NA (ed) Textbook of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2nd edn. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, pp 138–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharma S, Sachdeva SD (2012) A comparative study of electro surgery and scalpel surgery. Heal Talk 5(1):36–38Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hainer BL (1991) Fundamentals of electrosurgery. J Am Board Fam Pract 4:419–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deepa D, Chawla A, Srivastava P (2015) Gingival depigmentation by scalpel, diode laser and electrosurgery—a case report. Indian J Dent Sci 7(2):1–4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hasar ZB, Ozmeric N, Gokemnoglu C, Altan G (2016) Comparison of radiofrequency and electrocautery with conventional scalpel incisions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 5(4):1–6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Funde S, Baburaj MD, Pimpale SK (2015) Comparison between laser, electrocautery and scalpel in the treatment of drug induced gingival overgrowth: a case report. Indian J Dent Assoc 1(10):27–30Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raghavan R, Shajahan PA, Koruthu A, Sukumar B, Nair A, Divakar KP (2014) Second stage surgery: a clinical report comparing efficacy of laser and electrocautery. Int J Dent Res 2(1):26–28Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Babaji P, Singh V, Chaurasia VR, Jawale MR (2014) Electrosurgery in dentistry: report of cases. J Pediatr Dent 2(1):20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Divyashree P, Gujjari KS, Ravi K (2014) A case report of gingival and alveolar bone necrosis following gingivectomy by electrosurgery. Indian J Dent Assoc 6(3):47–49Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strock MS (1952) The rationale for electrosurgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 6(1):1166–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gordon JC (2008) Soft tissue cutting with laser versus electrosurgery. J Am Dent Assoc 139:981–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poswillo DE (1966) A comparative study of the effects of electrosurgery and cryosurgery in the management of benign oral lesions. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 9(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pant VA, Pandey S (2015) A rare case report of grade III gingival enlargement associated with chronic periodontitis: comparison of two treatment techniques. Nat J Maxillofac Surg 6(1):119–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malone WF, Manning JL (1968) Electrosurgery in restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 20(5):417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fricke L, Rankine CAN (1990) Comparison of electrosurgery with conventional fiberotomies on rotational relapse and gingival tissue in the dog. J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 97:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niamtu J (2005) 4.0 MHz radiowave surgery in cosmetic facial surgery. Australas J Cosmet Surg 1:52Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ogus WMI (1941) The elimination of the pyorrheal pocket by electrosurgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 3(1):135–144Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rathofer AS, Gardner MF, Vermilyea GS (1985) A comparison of healing and pain following excision of inflammatory papillary hyperplasia with electro surgery and blade-loop knives in human patients. Oral Surg 59(2):130–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coelho DH, Cavallaro J, Rothschild EA (1975) Gingival recession with electrosurgery for impression making. J Prosthet Dent 33(4):422–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kenneth LK, Robert FK, David HS, Allen RE (1987) Histologic evaluation of gingival response to an electrosurgical blade. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:671–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kenneth LK, Robert FK, Allen RE, Richard AR (1983) Subjacent heat production during tissue excision with electrosurgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:653–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaminer R, Liebow C, Margarone JE, Zambon JJ (1990) Bacteremia following laser and conventional surgery in hamsters. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:45–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maness WL, Roeber FW, Clark RE, Cataldo E, Ritis S, Haddad AW (1978) Histologic evaluation of electrosurgery with varying frequency and waveform. J Prosthet Dent 40(3):304–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryBRS Dental College and HospitalSultanpur, PanchkulaIndia

Personalised recommendations