Articles Tập 67 Số CĐ15 25/09/2026

COMPARISON OF TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLAR SURGERY USING PIEZOSURGERY AND ROTARY INSTRUMENTS: A SPLIT-MOUTH CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL

Pham Phuoc Danh, Hong Quoc Khanh, Lam Nhut Tan, Nguyen Thien Phuoc, Be Nguyen Kim Tu, Vo Duc Tuan, Lam Thanh Hien, Tran Duy Quan
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD15.6818
49 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Objectives: To compare the treatment outcomes of mandibular third molar surgery using piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments.

Subjects and methods: A split-mouth controlled clinical trial was conducted on 44 patients with bilateral mandibular third molars indicated for surgical extraction at Ho Chi Minh city Odonto-Maxillo-Facial Hospital from July 2025 to March 2026. Each patient underwent extraction of one mandibular third molar using piezosurgery and the contralateral tooth using conventional rotary instruments. Treatment outcomes were evaluated based on operative time, postoperative swelling, pain, and mouth opening on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7. Statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results: Females accounted for 61.4%, and patients younger than 25 years represented 70.5% of the study population. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the piezosurgery group than in the rotary instrument group (30.93 ± 6.71 vs. 18.98 ± 4.88 minutes, p < 0.001). Postoperative swelling and pain scores were significantly lower in the piezosurgery group on days 1, 3, and 7 (p < 0.001). Mouth opening showed a progressive improvement in the piezosurgery group at all follow-up time points (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Piezosurgery significantly reduced postoperative swelling and pain while improving mouth opening following mandibular third molar surgery, despite requiring a longer operative time than rotary instruments.

Keywords
Surgery, mandibular third molar, piezosurgery, split-mouth clinical trial.
References
[1]
[1] Franco R, Di Girolamo M, Franceschini C et al. the comparative efficacy of burs versus piezoelectric techniques in third molar surgery: a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. Medicina (Mex), 2024, 60 (12): 2049. doi: 10.3390/medicina60122049. Google Scholar
[2]
[2] Arakji H, Shokry M, Aboelsaad N. Comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments for removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled clinical and radiographic trial. Int J Dent, 2016, 2016: 8169356. doi: 10.1155/2016/8169356. Google Scholar
[3]
[3] Erdem M.K, Cambazoglu M. A comparative analysis of postoperative morbidity and alveolar bone regeneration following surgical extraction of ımpacted lower third molar teeth using piezosurgery and conventional ınstruments: a split-mouth clinical ınvestigation. Eur J Med Res, 2024, 29 (1): 460. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02051-8. Google Scholar
[4]
[4] Cicciù M, Stacchi C, Fiorillo L et al. Piezoelectric bone surgery for impacted lower third molar extraction compared with conventional rotary instruments: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 50 (1): 121-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.03.008. Google Scholar
[5]
[5] Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C et al. Piezoelectric versus conventional rotary techniques for impacted third molar extraction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94 (41): e1685. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001685. Google Scholar
[6]
[6] Hamza S.P, Aslam S, Roshni A et al. Conventional rotary technique and piezosurgical technique in the removal of impacted mandibular third molar: a comparative study. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2023, 24 (2): 97-102. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3469. Google Scholar
[7]
[7] Kour R, Arora S.S, Grack V. Surgical outcome after impacted mandibular third molar surgery using piezotome and conventional rotary handpiece: a comparative study. Int J Res Med Sci, 2023, 11 (11): 4067-4071. doi: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20233376. Google Scholar
[8]
[8] Lê Minh Phúc, Nguyễn Hoàng Nam, Nguyễn Quang Tâm. Đặc điểm lâm sàng, X quang và đánh giá kết quả phẫu thuật nhổ răng khôn hàm dưới phân loại II theo Parant mở xương bằng máy Piezotome và tay khoan chậm. Tạp chí Y Dược học Cần Thơ, 2024, (79): 1-7. doi: 10.58490/ctump.2024i79.2863. Google Scholar
[9]
[9] Lê Thị Thu Hải, Lê Diệp Linh, Vũ Hồng Thái. So sánh kết quả phẫu thuật răng khôn hàm dưới bằng máy phẫu thuật siêu âm và phương pháp nhổ răng kinh điển tại Bệnh viện Quân y 103. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam, 2024, 537 (2): 287-291. doi: 10.51298/vmj.v537i2.9258. Google Scholar
[10]
[10] Vũ Đức Chí, Đỗ Thị Thảo, Trịnh Minh Trí. Đặc điểm lâm sàng, X quang và so sánh kết quả phẫu thuật nhổ răng khôn hàm trên mọc lệch bằng máy Piezotome và tay khoan thẳng. Tạp chí Y Dược học Cần Thơ, 2024, (79): 44-50. doi: 10.58490/ctump.2024i79.2862. Google Scholar