Abstract
Aims
This study aims to compare the outcome of radiosurgically assisted incision technique with the conventional scalpel blade technique in impacted mandibular third molar incisions.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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):5154–5159
Sanghirian LM (1949) Electrosurgical gingivoplasty. J Am Dent Assoc 38(1):67–78
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 138–159
Sharma S, Sachdeva SD (2012) A comparative study of electro surgery and scalpel surgery. Heal Talk 5(1):36–38
Hainer BL (1991) Fundamentals of electrosurgery. J Am Board Fam Pract 4:419–426
Deepa D, Chawla A, Srivastava P (2015) Gingival depigmentation by scalpel, diode laser and electrosurgery—a case report. Indian J Dent Sci 7(2):1–4
Hasar ZB, Ozmeric N, Gokemnoglu C, Altan G (2016) Comparison of radiofrequency and electrocautery with conventional scalpel incisions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 5(4):1–6
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):27–30
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):26–28
Babaji P, Singh V, Chaurasia VR, Jawale MR (2014) Electrosurgery in dentistry: report of cases. J Pediatr Dent 2(1):20–24
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):47–49
Strock MS (1952) The rationale for electrosurgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 6(1):1166–1172
Gordon JC (2008) Soft tissue cutting with laser versus electrosurgery. J Am Dent Assoc 139:981–984
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):1–7
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):119–121
Malone WF, Manning JL (1968) Electrosurgery in restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 20(5):417–425
Fricke L, Rankine CAN (1990) Comparison of electrosurgery with conventional fiberotomies on rotational relapse and gingival tissue in the dog. J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 97:405–412
Niamtu J (2005) 4.0 MHz radiowave surgery in cosmetic facial surgery. Australas J Cosmet Surg 1:52
Ogus WMI (1941) The elimination of the pyorrheal pocket by electrosurgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 3(1):135–144
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):130–135
Coelho DH, Cavallaro J, Rothschild EA (1975) Gingival recession with electrosurgery for impression making. J Prosthet Dent 33(4):422–426
Kenneth LK, Robert FK, David HS, Allen RE (1987) Histologic evaluation of gingival response to an electrosurgical blade. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:671–674
Kenneth LK, Robert FK, Allen RE, Richard AR (1983) Subjacent heat production during tissue excision with electrosurgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:653–657
Kaminer R, Liebow C, Margarone JE, Zambon JJ (1990) Bacteremia following laser and conventional surgery in hamsters. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:45–48
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):304–308
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalia, V., Siddiqui, N. & Kalra, G. Comparative Analysis of Radiosurgery and Scalpel Blade Surgery in Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Incisions: a Clinical Trial. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 17, 458–465 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1071-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1071-2