Curricularization of a Technical Course in Oral Health at the High School Level for the
Indigenous Community in Xingu: An Environmental Analysis
Ana Gigovska Arsova1, Bruno Nikolovski1,2*, Biljana Evrosimovska1, Nikola Gigovski3 and Boris Velickovski4
1University Dental Clinical Center “St. Pantelejmon”, Clinic for Oral Surgery and Implantology, Skopje, North Macedonia
2Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, Stip, North Macedonia
3Faculty of Dentistry, Department for Prosthodontics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, North Macedonia
4Faculty of Dentistry, Department for Oral Surgery, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, North Macedonia
*Corresponding Author: Bruno Nikolovski, University Dental Clinical Center “St. Pantelejmon”, Clinic for Oral Surgery and Implantology, Skopje, North Macedonia.
Received: July 17, 2023; Published: August 04, 2023
Background: Impacted mandibular third molars are frequently encountered in daily oral surgery practice. Surgical extraction of these teeth is indicated when they cause multiple problems that interfere with the normal functioning of the masticatory system, or as a prophylactic measure to prevent clinical symptoms. Due to the shortcomings of traditional rotary instruments, piezosurgery appears as an alternative technique to osteotomy whose main benefits are that it is inert to soft anatomical structures and it reduces the risk of damage or thermal necrosis of osteocytes.
Aim: The aim of this study is to compare piezosurgical and conventional osteotomy with hand piece and burs evaluating the time needed for the osteotomy and the intensity of postoperative complications, including pain and trismus.
Materials and Methods: Intraoperative and postoperative aspects were evaluated for the comparison between piezosurgical osteotomy and osteotomy with rotary instruments in the surgical removal of mandibular impacted wisdom teeth in total of 15 young patients through a split-mouth study.
Results: It takes more time to perform an osteotomy using piezosurgery compared to the conventional technique with rotatory instruments, but statistically non-significant. Postoperative pain and trismus were lower in the test group where the osteotomy was performed piezosurgically, also without statistical significance.
Conclusion: Due to the lower intensity of postoperative symptoms, piezosurgery is a good therapeutic option for osteotomy, especially in cases where there is a high risk of injury to adjacent soft tissues.
Keywords:Impacted Mandibular Third Molars; Rotary Instruments; Piezosurgery; Osteotomy
- Menziletoglu D., et al. “A prospective split-mouth clinical study: comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments in impacted third molar surgery”. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1 (2020): 51-55.
- Bouloux GF., et al. “Complications of third molar surgery”. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinical North America 1 (2007): 117-128.
- Wayland J. “Impacted third molars”. WileyBlackwell, John Wiley and Sons, Inc (2018).
- Shetty L., et al. “Comparison of the C-Reactive Protein Level and Visual Analog Scale Scores between Piezosurgery and Rotatory Osteotomy in Mandibular Impacted Third Molar Extraction”. Life (Basel)6 (2022): 923.
- Schlee М., et al. “Piezosurgery: Basics and Possibilities”. Implant Dentistry 4 (2006): 334-340.
- Aly LAA. “Piezoelectric Surgery: Applications in oral and Maxillofacial Surgery”. Future Dental Journal 4 (2018): 105-111.
- Zara F., et al. “A split-mouth study comparing piezo electric surgery and traditional rotary burs on impacted third molars in young patients: an intraoperative and postoperative evaluation”. Minerva Stomatologica 5 (2020): 278-285.
- Moradi Haghgoo J., et al. “Comparison of the effect of three autogenous bone harvesting methods on cell viability in rabbits”. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects 2 (2017): 73-77.
- Vercellotti T., et al. “Osseous response following resective therapy with piezosurgery”. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 25 (2005): 543-549.
- Pederson GW. “Oral Surgery”. Philadelphia: WB Saunders (1988).
- Saraiva Amaral J., et al. “A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Piezo Versus Conventional Rotary Surgery for Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars”. Bioengineering (Basel) 7 (2022): 276.
- Cicciù M., 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”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 50 (2021): 121-131.
- Mistry FK., et al. “Postsurgical consequences in lower third molar surgical extraction using micromotor and piezosurgery”. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery 2 (2016): 251-259.
- Horton JE., et al. “The healing of surgical defects in alveolar bone produced with ultrasonic instrumentation, chisel, and rotary bur”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 39 (1975): 536-546.
- Labanca M., et al. “Piezoelectric surgery: Twenty years of use”. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 46 (2008): 265-269.
- Jiang Q., et al. “Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Rotary Techniques for Impacted Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”. Medicine 94 (2015): e1685.
- Al-Moraissi EA., et al. “Does the Piezoelectric Surgical Technique Produce Fewer Postoperative Sequelae after Lower Third Molar Surgery than Conventional Rotary Instruments? A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 45 (2016): 383–391.
- Oikarinen K. “Postoperative pain after mandibular third-molar surgery”. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 49 (1991): 7-13.
- Benediktsdóttir IS., et al. “Mandibular third molar removal: Risk indicators for extended operation time, postoperative pain, and complications”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 97 (2004): 438-446.
- Barone A., et al. “A randomized clinical evaluation of ultrasound bone surgery versus traditional rotary instruments in lower third molar extraction”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 68 (2010): 330-336.
- Troedhan A., et al. “Ultrasonic piezotome surgery: Is it a benefit for our patients and does it extend surgery time? A retrospective comparative study on the removal of 100 impacted mandibular 3rd molars”. Open Journal of Stomatology 1 (2011): 179-184.
- Rullo R., et al. “Piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: Relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations”. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 41 (2013): e33-38.
- Thibault R., et al. “L’ Expansion Scientifique Française”. Paris, France (1974).
- Liu J., et al. “Piezosurgery vs Conventional Rotary Instrument in the Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”. Journal of Dental Sciences 13 (2018): 342-349.
- Nehme W., et al. “Piezo-surgery technique and intramuscular dexamethasone injection to reduce postoperative pain after impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial”. BMC Oral Health 1 (2021): 393.
- Sivolella S., et al. “Osteotomy for lower third molar germectomy: Randomized prospective crossover clinical study comparing piezosurgery and conventional rotatory osteotomy”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 69 (2011): e15-23.
- Mantovani E., et al. “A split-mouth randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of piezosurgery compared with traditional technique in lower wisdom tooth removal”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 72 (2014): 1890-1897.
- Nogueira DGM., et al. “Piezoelectric Surgery Is Effective in Reducing Pain, Swelling, and Trismus After Removal of Impacted Lower Third Molars: A Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 4 (2023): 483-498.