Comparative Analysis of Radiosurgery and Scalpel Blade Surgery in Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Incisions: a Clinical Trial
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.
KeywordsRadiosurgery Electrosurgery Tissue contouring system Impacted mandibular molars
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participant or animals performed by any of the author.
- 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
- 4.Sharma S, Sachdeva SD (2012) A comparative study of electro surgery and scalpel surgery. Heal Talk 5(1):36–38Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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
- 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
- 18.Niamtu J (2005) 4.0 MHz radiowave surgery in cosmetic facial surgery. Australas J Cosmet Surg 1:52Google Scholar
- 19.Ogus WMI (1941) The elimination of the pyorrheal pocket by electrosurgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 3(1):135–144Google Scholar