A comparative study of surgical drain placement and the use of kinesiologic tape to reduce postoperative morbidity after third molar surgery
- 113 Downloads
Our aim was to compare the effects of the surgical drain and kinesiotape applications on postoperative morbidity after mandibular third molar surgery in a split-mouth study design.
Materials and methods
A single-centre, split-mouth study was performed in 23 patients who needed surgical removal of bilateral mandibular third molars. Each patient was treated with a drain tube on one side of the mandible and Kinesio tape (KT) on the contralateral side.
Swelling was significantly greater in the KT group than in the drain group throughout the study period. The groups did not differ significantly in the amount of trismus at any time point. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-measured pain intensity was significantly lower in the drainage group. Patients with KT had greater postoperative discomfort than those with a drain tube. All patients were generally satisfied with their treatments.
Although both treatments were useful, a surgical drain was significantly more effective at reducing swelling and pain intensity than Kinesio tape. The effects of both on trismus were similar.
KeywordsThird molar Morbidity Drain Kinesiologic tape
The authors thank Mevlut Uzun for assistance with statistical analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional and/or national research committee(s) and those of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the ethics review board of Istanbul University, Faculty of Dentistry.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
- 1.Szolnoky G, Szendi-Horváth K, Seres L, Boda K, Kemény L (2007) Manual lymph drainage efficiently reduces postoperative facial swelling and discomfort after removal of impacted third molars. Lymphology 40(3):138–142Google Scholar
- 12.Dubois D, Pizer M, Chinnis R (1982) Comparison of primary and secondary closure techniques after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 11:630–634Google Scholar
- 13.Od O, Ra A, Uk O (2011) Management of inflammatory complications in third molar surgery. Afr Health Sci 11(3):530–537Google Scholar
- 14.Sağlam A (2003) Effects of tube drain with primary closure technique on postoperative trismus and swelling after removal of fully impacted mandibular third molars. Quintessence Int (Berl) 34(2):143–147Google Scholar
- 15.Ordulu M, Aktas I, Yalcin S, Azak AN, Evlioğlu G, Disçi R, Emes Y (2006) Comparative study of the effect of tube drainage versus methylprednisolone after third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101(6):e96–e100Google Scholar
- 16.Kumar B, Bhate K, Dolas RS, Kumar SS, Waknis P (2016) Comparative evaluation of immediate post-operative sequelae after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar with or without tube drain—split-mouth study. J Clin Diagn Res 10(12):ZC46–ZC49Google Scholar
- 18.Kase K, Hashimoto T, Tomoki O (1996) Development of kinesio taping perfect manual. Kinesio Taping Association, Tokyo, pp 1–39Google Scholar
- 20.Xue P, Wang J, Wu B, Ma Y, Wu F, Hou R (2015) Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative inflammatory complications in Chinese patients having impacted mandibular third molars removed: a split- mouth, double-blind, self-controlled, clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:416–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar