Effects of Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction on Periodontal Tissue of the Adjacent Second Molar

Figures & data

Figure 1 Pre- and post-operative soft and hard tissue comparison of vertical and mesial impacted lower third molar extraction: (A) pre-operation vertical impaction, (B)post-operation vertical impaction, (C) pre-operation mesial impaction, (D) post-operation mesial impacton.

Figure 2 Illustration of the flap designs used in impacted mandibular third molar extraction: (A) standard envelope flap, (B) standard triangular flap, (C) Szmyd flap, (D–F) modification flaps.

Table 1 Clinical Periodontal Characteristics of Flap Design

Author/Year	Nº Patients	Variable	Flap Design	Follow-Up	Conclusion
Chen et al 2017^Citation30		PPD	Triangular/Envelope/Szmyd flap/Modified Triangular/Envelope/Szmyd flap	>3 Month	The szmyd flap and modified flap may be the most effective in reducing PPD, the envelope flap may be the least effective
Korkmaz et al 2015^Citation31	28	PPD	Envelope flap/Triangular flap	3 Month	The triangular flap had lesser postoperative PPD than envelope flap
Briguglio et al 2011^Citation32	45	PPD, CAL	Envelope flap/Modified Envelope flap/Triangular flap	12 Month	The triangular flap has a statistically significant reduction in PPD and an increase in AL compared to the other group
Monaco et al 2009^Citation29	24	PPD	Triangular flap/Envelope flap	7 Day	The triangular flap had lesser postoperative PPD than envelope flap
Kirtiloglu et al 2007^Citation27	18	PPD, CAL	Triangular flap/Modified Szmyd flap	7 Day, 14 Day	The modified Szmyd flap had lesser postoperative PPD than triangular flap
Suarez-Cunqueiro et al 2003^Citation26	27	PPD	Triangular flap/Modified Triangular flap	5 Day, 10 Day	The modified triangular flap had lesser postoperative PPD than triangular flap

Figure 3 Endogenous tissue engineering for periodontal regeneration.

Table 2 Clinical Periodontal Characteristics of Bone Regeneration Techniques

Author/Year	Nº Patients	Variable	Regeneration Technique	Follow-Up	Conclusion
Kim et al 2020^Citation65	31	PPD	Collagen sponge/ Control	3 Month	Significant reduced PD
Wang et al 2018^Citation64	120	Bone loss	Collagen sponge/	3 Month	the collagen sponge significantly reduced bone loss compared with the Gelatin sponge
			Gelatin sponge
Bhujbal et al 2018^Citation68	20	Bone density	PRP/ Control	6 Month	The PRP increased bone density compared with the control group
Xie et al 2018^Citation49	52	PPD, Bone loss	Scaling and Root planing/ Control	6 Month	Scaling and Root planing significantly decreased PPD and bone loss compared with those in the control group
Gandevivala et al 2017^Citation67	18	PPD	PRP/ Control	3 Month, 6 Month	The PRP reduced PPD compared with the control group
Chen et al 2017^Citation60	12	CAL, Bone density	Bio-oss/ Control	5 Year	The single Bio-OSS significantly decreased PPD and increased bone density
Doiphode et al 2016^Citation69	30	PPD, Bone density	PRP/	6 Month	The PRP and PRF decreased PPD and increased bone density compared with the control group
			PRF/ Control
Cortell et al 2015^Citation52	56	PPD, CAL	Resorbable membrane/ Control	6 Month	The resorbable membrane Control significantly reduced PPD and AL compared with those in the control group
Singh et al 2013^Citation58	25	PPD, Bone level	HA+collagen/ absorbable gelatin sponge	6 Month	HA+collagen increased in the alveolar bone level, improvement of PPD and better wound healing compared with absorbable gelatin sponge
Corinaldesi et al 2011^Citation53	11	PPD, CAL	Resorbable membrane/	9 Month	The absorbable membrane obtained the same marked PPD reductions and CAL gains as non-resorbable ePTFE membranes after M3 extraction.
			Non resorbable membrane
Sammartino et al 2009^Citation61	45	PPD, CAL, Bone density	Bio-oss/	6 Month	Both single Bio-OSS and the mixture can significantly decreased PPD and gained CAL
			Bio-oss-Collagen membrane/ Control
Throndson et al 2002^Citation59	14	CAL Bone formation	Bioactive glass/ Control	12 Month	The bioactive glass significantly increased AL but not the level of bone formation

Chen YW, Lee CT, Hum L, Chuang SK. Effect of flap design on periodontal healing after impacted third molar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(3):363–372. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2016.08.005

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Korkmaz YT, Mollaoglu N, Ozmeriç N. Does laterally rotated flap design influence the short-term periodontal status of second molars and postoperative discomfort after partially impacted third molar surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(6):1031–1041. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.005

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Briguglio F, Zenobio EG, Isola G, et al. Complications in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars in relation to flap design: clinical and statistical evaluations. Quintessence Int. 2011;42(6):445–453.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monaco G, Daprile G, Tavernese L, Corinaldesi G, Marchetti C. Mandibular third molar removal in young patients: an evaluation of 2 different flap designs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(1):15–21. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2007.05.032

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kirtiloğlu T, Bulut E, Sümer M, Cengiz I. Comparison of 2 flap designs in the periodontal healing of second molars after fully impacted mandibular third molar extractions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(11):2206–2210. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2006.11.029

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Gutwald R, Reichman J, Otero-Cepeda XL, Schmelzeisen R. Marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in impacted third molar surgery: a prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003;95(4):403–408. doi:10.1067/moe.2003.84

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim JW, Seong TW, Cho S, Kim SJ. Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of absorbable collagen sponge after extraction of impacted mandibular third molar: split-mouth design. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):77. doi:10.1186/s12903-020-1063-3

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang LC, Chen Z, Chen JP, Bai DH. Comparison of collagen sponge and gelatin sponge in preventing complications after impacted tooth extraction. J Guangdong Med Coll. 2018;36(5).

 Google Scholar

Bhujbal R, Malik NA, Kumar N, Kv S, Parkar MI, Mb J. Comparative evaluation of platelet rich plasma in socket healing and bone regeneration after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12(3):153–158. doi:10.15171/joddd.2018.024

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Xie C, Guo FY, Li XS, Cheng B. Effect of third molar extraction combined with simultaneous periodontal repair on periodontal tissue. Chin J Aesthet Med. 2018;27(1).

 Google Scholar

Gandevivala A, Sangle A, Shah D, et al. Autologous platelet-rich plasma after third molar surgery. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2017;7(2):245–249. doi:10.4103/ams.ams_108_16

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Chen ZF. Tissue engineered bone scaffold material in restoration of alveolar socket after extraction of lower impacted third molar. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2011;20(1):93–96.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Doiphode AM, Hegde P, Mahindra U, Santhosh Kumar SM, Tenglikar PD, Tripathi V. Evaluation of the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin in alveolar defects after removal of impacted bilateral mandibular third molars. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(Suppl 1):S47–S52. doi:10.4103/2231-0762.181167

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cortell-Ballester I, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Gay-Escoda C. Effects of collagen resorbable membrane placement after the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(8):1457–1464. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.015

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singh M, Bhate K, Kulkarni D, Santhosh Kumar SN, Kathariya R. The effect of alloplastic bone graft and absorbable gelatin sponge in prevention of periodontal defects on the distal aspect of mandibular second molars, after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar: a comparative prospective study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015;14(1):101–106. doi:10.1007/s12663-013-0599-z

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Corinaldesi G, Lizio G, Badiali G, Morselli-Labate AM, Marchetti C. Treatment of intrabony defects after impacted mandibular third molar removal with bioabsorbable and non-resorbable membranes. J Periodontol. 2011;82(10):1404–1413. doi:10.1902/jop.2011.100466

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sammartino G, Tia M, Bucci T, Wang HL. Prevention of mandibular third molar extraction-associated periodontal defects: a comparative study. J Periodontol. 2009;80(3):389–396. doi:10.1902/jop.2009.080503

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Throndson RR, Sexton SB. Grafting mandibular third molar extraction sites: a comparison of bioactive glass to a nongrafted site. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94(4):413–419. doi:10.1067/moe.2002.127582

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar