Skip to main content

Influence of two different flap designs on the sequelae of mandibular third molar surgery

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery volume 15, Article number: 147 (2011) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the influence of triangular and envelope flaps on trismus, pain, and facial swelling after mandibular third molar surgery.

Methods

Twenty healthy patients with bilateral, symmetrically impacted mandibular third molars were included in this double-blinded, prospective, cross-over, randomized study. The patients were operated with envelope flap on one side and triangular flap on the other side. Trismus was determined by measuring maximum interincisal opening, and facial swelling was evaluated using a tape measuring method. Pain was determined using visual analog scale (VAS) and recording the number of pain pills taken.

Results

The facial swelling measurements and VAS scores were lower in the envelope flap group compared to the triangular flap group. There was no significant difference between the two flap designs in operation time, maximum interincisal opening, and the number of analgesics taken.

Conclusion

Envelope flap yields to less facial swelling and reduced VAS scores in comparison to triangular flap. There is no clinical difference in trismus between the two flap designs. Despite the higher VAS scores with triangular flap, no additional doses of analgesics were required in triangular flap.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Monaco G, Staffolani C, Gatto MR, Checchi L (1999) Antibiotic therapy in impacted third molar surgery. Eur J Oral Sci 107:437–741

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirk DG, Liston PN, Tong DC, Love RM (2007) Influence of two different flap designs on incidence of pain, swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis in the week following third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 68:309–312

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sencimen M, Varol A, Gülses A, Altug HA (2009) Extraction of a deeply impacted lower third molar by sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endo 108:36–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghoreishian M, Gheisari R, Fayazi M (2009) Tissue adhesive and suturing for closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a comparative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:14–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Monaco G, Daprile G, Tavernese L, Corinaldesi G, Marchetti C (2002) Mandibular third molar removal in young patients: an evaluation of 2 different flap designs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nageshwar A (2002) Comma incision for impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1506–1509

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jakse N, Bankaoglu V, Wimmer G (2002) Primary wound healing after lower third molar surgery: evaluation of 2 different flap designs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93:7–12

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Gutwald R, Reichman J, Otero-Cepeda XL, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in impacted third molar surgery: a prospective surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95:403–408

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karaca I, Simsek S, Ugar D, Bozkaya S (2007) Review of flap design influence on the health of the periodontium after mandibular third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:18–23

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Quee TA, Gosselin D, Millar EP, Stamm JW (1985) Surgical removal of the fully impacted mandibular third molar. The influence of flap design and alveolar bone height on the periodontal status of the second molar. J Periodontol 56:625–630

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kirtiloglu T, Bulut E, Sumer M, Cengiz I (2007) Comparison of 2 flap designs in the periodontal healing of second molars after fully impacted mandibular third molar extractions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:2206–2210

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stephens RJ, App GR, Foreman DW (1983) Periodontal evaluation of two mucoperiosteal flaps used in removing impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:719–724

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schofield ID, Kogon SL, Donner A (1988) Long-term comparison of two surgical flap designs for third molar surgery on the health of the periodontal tissue of the second molar tooth. J Can Dent Assoc 54:689–691

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosa AL, Carneiro MG, Lavrador MA, Novaes AB Jr (2002) Influence of flap design onperiodontal healing of second molars after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93:404–407

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Woolf RH, Malmquist JP, Wright WH (1978) Third molar extractions: periodontal implications of two flap designs. Gen Dent 26:52–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chaves AJ, Nascimento LR, Costa ME, Franz-Montan M, Oliveira-Júnior PA, Groppo FC (2008) Effects of surgical removal of mandibular third molar on the periodontium of the second molar. Int J Dent Hyg 6:123–128

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pell GJ, Gregory G (1942) Report on a ten-year study of a tooth division technique for the removal of impacted teeth. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 28:660–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Susarla SM, Blaeser BF, Magalnick D (2003) Third molar surgery and associated complications. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 15:177–186

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kugelberg CF (1992) Third molar surgery. Curr Opin Dent 2:9–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Esen E, Tasar F, Akhan O (1999) Determination of the anti-inflammatory effects of methylprednisolone on the sequelae of third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57:1201–1206

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Llewelyn J, Ryan M, Santosh C (1996) The use of magnetic resonance imaging to assess swelling after the removal of third molar teeth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:419–423

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Berge TI (1989) The use of a visual analogue scale in observer assessment of postoperative swelling subsequent to third-molar surgery. Acta Odontol Scand 47:167–174

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 34:52–57

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gabka J, Matsumara T (1971) Measuring techniques and clinical testing of an anti-inflammatory agent (tantum). Münch Med Wochenschr 113:198–203

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Üstün Y, Erdogan O, Esen E, Karsli ED (2003) Comparison of the effects of 2 doses of methylprednisolone on pain, swelling, and trismus after third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 96:535–539

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Szolnoky G, Szendi-Horvath K, Seres L, Boda K, Kemeny L (2007) Manual lymph drainage efficiently reduces postoperative facial swelling and discomfort after removal of impacted third molars. Lymphology 40:138–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Çukurova University, 01330, Adana, Turkey

    Özgür Erdogan, Ufuk Tatlı, Yakup Üstün & Ibrahim Damlar

Authors
  1. Özgür Erdogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ufuk Tatlı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yakup Üstün
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ibrahim Damlar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Özgür Erdogan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Erdogan, Ö., Tatlı, U., Üstün, Y. et al. Influence of two different flap designs on the sequelae of mandibular third molar surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg 15, 147 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-011-0268-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-011-0268-7

Keywords

  • Third molar
  • Dentoalveolar surgery
  • Flap design
  • Morbidity
  • Cross-over study