• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.19-25
• /
• 2018

Background: Third molar extraction is associated with considerable pain and discomfort, which is mostly managed with oral analgesic medication. We assessed the analgesic effect of benzydamine hydrochloride, a topical analgesic oral rinse, for controlling postoperative pain following third molar extraction. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 40 patients divided into two groups, for extraction of fully erupted third molar. Groups A received benzydamine hydrochloride mouthwash and group B received normal saline gargle with oral ibuprofen and paracetamol. Oral ibuprofen and paracetamol was the rescue analgesic drug in group A. Patients were evaluated on the $3^{rd}$ and $7^{th}$ post-operative days (POD) for pain using the visual analogue score (VAS), trismus, total number of analgesics consumed, and satisfaction level of patients. Results: The VAS in groups A and B on POD3 and POD7 was $4.55{\pm}2.54$ and $3.95{\pm}1.8$, and $1.2{\pm}1.64$ and $0.95{\pm}1.14$, respectively and was statistically insignificant. The number of analgesics consumed in groups A and B on POD3 ($5.25{\pm}2.22$ and $6.05{\pm}2.43$) was not statistically different from that consumed on POD7 ($9.15{\pm}5.93$ and $10.65{\pm}6.46$). The p values for trismus on POD3 and POD7 were 0.609 and 0.490, respectively and those for patient satisfaction level on POD3 and POD7 were 0.283 and 0.217, respectively. Conclusions: Benzydamine hydrochloride oral rinses do not significantly reduce intake of oral analgesics and are inadequate for pain relief following mandibular third molar extraction.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.201-208
• /
• 2019

Background: After tooth extraction, pain due to dry socket and pain in the adjacent tooth are common. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze pain in the adjacent tooth after surgical extraction of the mandibular third molar. Methods: Postoperative pain due to dry socket, pain in the adjacent tooth, and pain from other causes were present. Group A included patents with dry socket alone; group B included patients with pain in the adjacent tooth alone; and group C included patients with both. The duration of symptoms was recorded. In addition, the prognosis of pain was divided into the complete improvement, improvement, maintenance, deterioration, and complete deterioration groups. Results: A total of 312 mandibular third molars were extracted from 13, 60, and 10 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The mean duration of symptoms was 5 days in group A and B and 15.2 days in group C. There were statistically significant differences in the duration of symptoms between groups A and C and groups B and C. Conclusion: Pain in the adjacent tooth after third molar extraction can be caused by inflammatory reactions and pressure on this tooth. The pain caused by pressure on the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone results from the cytokines released by osteoclasts, which are responsible for bone destruction. However, pain from periodontal ligament damage caused by excessive pressure may be misunderstood as pulpal pain. Unconscious parafunctional habits, such as clenching and bruxism, could also be associated with post-extraction pain.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.48 no.6
• /
• pp.371-381
• /
• 2022

Objectives: This study determined the effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on extraction socket bone regeneration and assessed the patterns and determinants of bone regeneration after the surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Materials and Methods: This prospective study randomly allocated 90 patients into two treatment groups: A PRF group (intervention group) and a non-PRF group (control group). After surgical extractions, the PRF group had PRF placed in the extraction socket and the socket was sutured, while the socket was only sutured in the non-PRF group. At postoperative weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12, periapical radiographs were obtained and HLImage software was used to determine the region of newly formed bone (RNFB) and the pattern of bone formation. The determinants of bone regeneration were assessed. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: The percentage RNFB (RNFB%) was not significantly higher in the PRF group when compared with the non-PRF group at postoperative weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12 (P=0.188, 0.155, 0.132, and 0.219, respectively). Within the non-PRF group, the middle third consistently exhibited the highest bone formation while the least amount of bone formation was consistently observed in the cervical third. In the PRF group, the middle third had the highest bone formation, while bone formation at the apical third was smaller compared to the cervical third at the 8th week with this difference widening at the 12th week. The sex of the patient, type of impaction, and duration of surgery was significantly associated with percentage bone formation (P=0.041, 0.043, and 0.018, respectively). Conclusion: Placement of PRF in extraction sockets increased socket bone regeneration. However, this finding was not statistically significant. The patient's sex, type of impaction, and duration of surgery significantly influenced the percentage of bone formation.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.250-257
• /
• 2020

Objectives: Palatal infiltration is the most painful and uncomfortable anesthesia technique for maxillary impacted third molar surgery (MITMS). This approach could cause patients distress and aversion to dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a buccal infiltration injection without a palatal injection in MITMS. Materials and Methods: This prospective research study was a crossover split mouth-randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight healthy symmetrical bilateral MITMS patients (mean age, 23 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. Buccal infiltration injections without palatal injections were designated as the study group and the buccal with palatal infiltration cases were the control group, using 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine. The operation started after 10 minutes of infiltration. Pain assessment was done using a visual analogue scale and a numeric rating scale after each injection and extraction procedure. Similarly, the success rate, hemodynamic parameters, and additional requested local anesthetic were assessed. Results: The results showed that the pain associated with local anesthetic injections between both groups were significantly different. However, the success rates between the groups were not significantly different. Postoperative pain was not significant between both groups and a few patients requested an additional local anesthetic, but the results were not statistically significant. For hemodynamic parameters, there was a significant difference in systolic pressure during incision, bone removal, and tooth elevation. In comparison, during the incision stage there was a significant difference in diastolic pressure; however, other steps in the intervention were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: We concluded that buccal infiltration injection without palatal injection can be an alternative technique instead of the conventional injection for MITMS.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.31 no.6
• /
• pp.474-480
• /
• 2005

We evaluated the need for prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotic medication in extraction of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. All patient didn't show sign of pain, inflammation, swelling and trismus at the time of extraction. In the experimental group, oral antibiotic medication(Amoxicillin) was carried out for 5 days postoperatively. In the control group, the patients received no antibiotic medication. All groups didn't use antibiotic irrigation solution. Rule of group composition randomized. The surgical technique was the same in all cases. Parameters that were evaluated were infection, pain, facial swelling, trismus. We could not find any significant difference between the experimental and control groups.(P<0.05) The results of our study show that post operative oral prophylactic antibiotic medication after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars does not contribute to less infection, pain, facial swelling and increased mouth opening after surgery. Therefore we suggest that prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotic medication is not needed in extraction of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.29.1-29.5
• /
• 2017

Background: The surgical extraction of the third molar is the most frequently encountered procedure in oral and maxillofacial surgery and is related with a variety of complications. This study examined the efficacy of intentional partial odontectomy (IPO) in the third molars which have no periapical lesions and are located near important anatomical structures such as inferior alveolar nerve. Methods: Seven patients (four males, three females, $39.1{\pm}11.6years$), who received IPO to reduce the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury (IANI), were followed long-term. The treated teeth were horizontally impacted third molars in the mandibular left (n = 5) or mandibular right (n = 4) areas and were all ankylosed with the surrounding alveolar bone. During the IPO, the bone around the crown was removed to expose the crown, and then the tooth was resected at cement-enamel junction (CEJ). Any secondary trauma to the healthy root was minimized and remained intact after primary suture. Results: The mean follow-up time was $63.2{\pm}29.8months$, and all sites showed good bone healing after the crown removal. Also, sensory abnormality was not found in any patients after IPO. In one patient, the bone fragments erupted 4 months after IPO. In other patient, an implant placed on second molar site adjacent to the third molar that received IPO was explanted about 2 years after the patient's persistent discomfort. Conclusions: In case where high risk of IANI exists, IPO may be chosen alternatively to surgical extraction to reduce the risk of nerve damage.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.27 no.6
• /
• pp.560-564
• /
• 2001

The experienced surgeon can be surprised & challenged by the hazards of active bleeding during oral & maxillofacial surgical procedure, because of alterations in the surgical anatomy, bleeding disorders and surgical intervention of infected tissues. This is a report of two cases of active bleeding during surgical extraction of mandibular third molar, that had the pericoronitis, osteitis and adjacent neurovascular bundle in its apex. When the abrupt active bleeding was occurred during surgical extraction of mandibular third molar, pressure packing by hemostatie agent(bone wax) & wet gauze biting were applied into the extraction socket during 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, the wound was explored about the bleeding and active bleeding was then continued. In spite of repeated bleeding control method of the pressure dressing, the marked hemorrhage was generated continuously. Therefore, the author decised the bleeding as immediately uncontrollable hemorrhage and the pressure dressing was again applied for the more longer duration without wound closure. After 3 days, the pressure dressing was removed and iodoform gauze drainge was then established without the bleeding. The drain was changed as the interval of 3~5 days for prevention of infection & secondary hemorrhage and relatively good wound healing was then resulted in 6 weeks.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.157-162
• /
• 2003

Background : The surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar can result in considerable pain, swelling, and dysfunction that patient are incapable of work for several days. Factors contributing to post operative swelling, trismus and pain are complex. There is no question but that the procedure of surgically removing an impacted mandibular third molar is inherently a traumatic one and that some sequelae related to the inflammation response are expected. Meticulous surgical technique will minimize the sequelae of inflammation but will not prevent them. In an effort to minimize these sequelae the use of steroid was instituted. Patients and Methods : Present study was to investigate the effect of one preoperative steroid injection in the masseter muscle to the patients(male 9, female 11) who needed prophylactic removal of bilateral, symmetrical, impacted wisdom teeth in the mandible on the complaint like swelling, trismus and pain. through Double-Blind test. Results : 1. After 24 hours investigation, preoperative steroid injection had significantly reduced swelling with 39% and trismus with 57.5%. 2. $7^{th}$ post operative day investigation, reduced swelling and trismus had shown, however, not significant. 3. There wasn't major difference from the group who took preve-ntive steroid in the visual analogue scale, the first analgesic intake time and the pain period. 4. There wasn't any adverse reaction of steroid for 20 patient From the above result, If the patients are not contraindication to steroid and pronounced post operative reaction can be expected the use of steroid to the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar is recommended.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.29-35
• /
• 2017

Background: No study has compared lidocaine with articaine, each at a concentration of 4% and combined with epinephrine. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4% lidocaine with that of 4% articaine, with a concentration of 1:100,000 epinephrine added to each, in an inferior alveolar nerve block for surgery on impacted lower third molars. Method: This study was conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. The randomized, single-blind, comparative split-mouth study was carried out in patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars, as identified on panoramic radiographs. Each patient underwent surgery for the removal of the lower third molars by the same surgeon under local anesthesia at two separate visits, 3 weeks apart. The onset and duration of local anesthesia, intra-operative pain, surgical duration, and number of additional anesthetics administered were recorded. Results: The subjective and objective onset of action for the local anesthetics showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, the intra-operative pain, surgical duration, duration of local anesthesia, and number of additional anesthetics administered did not show statistically significant differences. Conclusion: The use of 4% articaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block was clinically more effective in the onset of subjective and objective anesthesia as compared with the use of 4% lidocaine. Based on the pain scores from the visual analogue scale, 4% lidocaine provided more analgesia during the procedure, and patients noted less intra-operative pain than with 4% articaine; however, the difference was not clinically significant.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.121-128
• /
• 2015

Background: The authors studied the hemodynamic effect influent by using the novel high concentration of lidocaine HCl for surgical removal impacted lower third molar. The objective of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic change when using different concentrations of lidocaine in impacted lower third molar surgery. Methods: Split mouth single blind study comprising 31 healthy patients with a mean age of 23 years (range 19-33 years). Subjects had symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiograph. Each participant required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period washout period. The participants were alternately assigned one of two types of local anesthetic (left or right) for the first surgery, then the other type of anesthetic for the second surgery. One solution was 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and the other was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A standard IANB with 1.8 ml volume was used. Any requirement for additional anesthetic and patient pain intra-operation was recorded. Post-operatively, patient was instructed to fill in the patient report form for any adverse effect and local anesthetic preference in terms of intra-operative pain. This form was collected at the seven day follow up appointment. Results: In the 4% lidocaine group, the heart rate increased during the first minute post-injection (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in arterial blood pressure during the operation. In the 2% lidocaine group, there was a significant increase in arterial blood pressure and heart rate in the first minute following injection for every procedure. When the hemodynamic changes in each group were compared, the 4% lidocaine group had significantly lower arterial blood pressure compared to the 2% lidocaine group following injection. Post-operatively, no adverse effects were observed by the operator and patient in either local anesthetic group. Patients reported less pain intra-operation in the 4% lidocaine group compared with the 2% lidocaine group (P < .05). Conclusions: Our results suggest that a 4% concentration of lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine has better clinical efficacy than 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used for surgical extraction of lower third molars. Neither drug had any clinical adverse effects.