Advertisement

Comparison of primary and secondary closure with a buccal mucosal-advancement flap on postoperative course after mandibular impacted third molar surgery

  • R. Balamurugan
  • Thomas ZachariahEmail author
Original Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare primary and secondary wound closure with a buccal mucosal-advancement flap technique on the postoperative course after mandibular impacted third molar surgery.

Methods

The study was conducted on 150 patients who required surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars under local anesthesia. The study subjects were divided into three groups of 50 patients each, based on the type of closure over the third molar socket. Patients in group I underwent primary closure of the socket with hermetic suturing of the flap, including the vertical release. In group II, a secondary closure was performed, leaving the socket communicating with the oral cavity. In group III, a buccal mucosal-advancement flap technique was employed to achieve primary closure of the flap over the socket while leaving the anterior vertical release, generously patent. All the patients were assessed for pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS), swelling, and mouth opening at postoperative intervals of 2, 4, and 7 days. The wound healing was assessed on day 7.

Results

Patients in the buccal mucosal-advancement flap group had significantly less pain and swelling and increased mouth opening compared with primary and secondary closure. Wound dehiscence was seen in 18 patients and alveolar osteitis in 4 patients in primary closure. Delayed wound healing with food accumulation was seen in 6 patients in secondary closure. No complications of flap dehiscence or breakdown were observed in the buccal mucosal-advancement flap group.

Conclusion

This study concludes that the buccal mucosal-advancement flap technique was a superior closure technique with less pain, swelling, trismus, and satisfactory wound healing compared with both primary and secondary closure after mandibular third molar surgery.

Keywords

Impacted mandibular third molar surgery Primary secondary closure Buccal mucosal-advancement flap 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Ethical approval

“All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Kim K, Brar P, Jakubowski J, Kaltman S, Lopez E (2009) The use of corticosteroids and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medication for the management of pain and inflammation after third molar surgery: a review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107(5):630–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendes ML, do Nascimento-Júnior EM, Reinheimer DM, Martins-Filho PR (2019) Efficacy of proteolytic enzyme bromelain on health outcomes after third molar surgery. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 24(1):e61–e69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herrera-Briones FJ, Prados Sánchez E, Reyes Botella C, Vallecillo Capilla M (2013) Update on the use of corticosteroids in third molar surgery: systematic review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116(5):e342–e351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rakparasitkul S, Pairuchvej V (1997) Mandibular third molar surgery with primary closure and tube drain. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26(3):187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saglam AA (2003) Effects of tube drain with primary closure technique on postoperative trismus and swelling after removal of fully impacted mandibular third molars. Quintessence Int 34(2):143–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerqueira PR, Vasconcelos BC, Bessa-Nogueira RV (2004) Comparative study of the effect of a tube drain in impacted lower third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(1):57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chukwuneke FN, Oji C, Saheeb DB (2008) A comparative study of the effect of using a rubber drain on postoperative discomfort following lower third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37(4):341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holland CS, Hindle MO (1984) The influence of closure or dressing of third molar sockets on post-operative swelling and pain. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 22(1):65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois DD, Pizer ME, Chinnis RJ (1982) Comparison of primary and secondary closure techniques after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(10):631–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pasqualini D, Cocero N, Castella A, Mela L, Bracco P (2005) Primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(1):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bielsa JM, Bazán SH, Diago MP (2008) Flap repositioning versus conventional suturing in third molar surgery. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 13(2):E138–E142Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danda AK, Krishna Tatiparthi M, Narayanan V, Siddareddi A (2010) Influence of primary and secondary closure of surgical wound after impacted mandibular third molar removal on postoperative pain and swelling - a comparative and split mouth study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(2):309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osunde OD, Saheeb BD, Adebola RA (2011) Comparative study of effect of single and multiple suture techniques on inflammatory complications after third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(4):971–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bello SA, Olaitan AA, Ladeinde AL (2011) A randomized comparison of the effect of partial and total wound closure techniques on postoperative morbidity after mandibular third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(6):e24–e30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khande K, Saluja H, Mahindra U (2011) Primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 10(2):112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Refo’a Y, Ouatik N, Golchin F, Mahboobi N (2011) Comparing primary and secondary wound healing discomfort after mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Gen Dent 59(4):310–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maria A, Malik M, Virang P (2012) Comparison of primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 11(3):276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pachipulusu PK, Manjula S (2018) Comparative study of primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg 22(3):261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waite PD, Cherala S (2006) Surgical outcomes for suture-less surgery in 366 impacted third molar patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64(4):669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hashemi HM, Beshkar M, Aghajani R (2012) The effect of sutureless wound closure on postoperative pain and swelling after impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50(3):256–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osunde OD, Adebola RA, Saheeb BD (2012) A comparative study of the effect of suture-less and multiple suture techniques on inflammatory complications following third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41(10):1275–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Damodar ND, Nandakumar H, Srinath NM (2013) Postoperative recovery after mandibular third molar surgery: a criteria for selection of type of surgical site closure. Gen Dent 61(3):e9–e13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh G, Gaur A, Mishra M, Chander M, Aurora JK, Gupta P (2014) Comparative evaluation of primary and secondary closure after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol 26(2):133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pederson GW (1988) Surgical removal of tooth. In: Pederson GW (ed) Oral surgery. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Yanine N, Araya I, Guyatt G (2012) Secondary versus primary closure techniques for the prevention of postoperative complications following removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(8):e441–e457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jakse N, Bankaoglu V, Wimmer G, Eskici A, Pertl C (2002) Primary wound healing after lower third molar surgery: evaluation of 2 different flap designs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93(1):7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Isik K, Candirli C (2013) Effect of 2 flap designs on postoperative pain and swelling after impacted third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116(4):e244–e246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and General HospitalMeenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University)ChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations