Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2020 October;69(5) > Minerva Stomatologica 2020 October;69(5):278-85

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2020 October;69(5):278-85

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.20.04349-6

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

A split-mouth study comparing piezo electric surgery and traditional rotary burs on impacted third molars in young patients: an intraoperative and postoperative evaluation

Francesca ZARA , Claudio M. DE SANCTIS, Fabia C. DEDE, Maurizio BOSSÙ, Gian L. SFASCIOTTI

Unit of Pediatric Dentistry, D.A.I Testa-Collo, Umberto I Polyclinic Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy



BACKGROUND: Piezoelectric surgery has been used in many different medical fields, for instance it is used in the field of oral surgery, as a valuable alternative to traditional rotary burs. Its first use dates to 1975 by Horton even if the first effective device for use in dentistry, has been developed by Vercellotti after the year 2000. The hypothesis of this study is that piezosurgery technology is more suitable in terms of specific intra-operative and postoperative evaluations compared to the rotary technology in ostectomy for the avulsion of the third molar germ. The null hypothesis presented is the lack of significant differences between the two technologies after and during surgery.
METHODS: Intraoperative and postoperative aspects are evaluated for a comparison between traditional rotary instruments and piezosurgery during germectomies in young patients through a blind randomized study (split-mouth). The surgical technique to employ for each hemi-arch was randomly selected from a computer algorithm. Different criteria were considered during the surgical procedure, in order to compare the two techniques.
RESULTS: The piezoelectric technique demanded more time than traditional rotary method, and the difference was statistically significant both for the time of the entire procedure and the time only required for the ostectomy itself. Postoperative evaluations such as maximum mouth opening, facial swelling and postoperative pain showed no statistical difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Even if the adopted clinical trial did not highlight any statistical difference the following review of literature showed an encouraging reduction in postoperative discomfort given by the piezosurgery as opposed to the traditional rotary bur surgery. The time taken to complete the operation, however, was longer with piezosurgery compared to traditional burs.


KEY WORDS: Molar, third; Surgery, oral; Piezosurgery

top of page