Int J Stomatol

Inter J Stomatol ›› 2017, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2): 153-156.doi: 10.7518/gjkq.2017.02.007

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Influence of improved triangular flap on postoperative complications after mandibular third molar removal and its clinical application

Zhang Rui, Zhang Lingge, Li Xihong, Li Rui   

  1. 1. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Zhengzhou Stomatological Hospital, Zhengzhou 450000, China;
    2. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450000, China
  • Received:2016-04-27 Online:2017-03-01 Published:2017-03-01
  • Supported by:
    This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(81300843).

RichHTML

25

PDF (PC)

722

Abstract: Objective This study evaluated the effects of two different flap designs(improved triangular flap and traditional triangular flap) on mandibular third molar post-surgical complications, and to investigate the clinical application of the improved triangular flap. Methods A total of 110 patients were selected in our hospital between October 2015 and April 2016, and were randomly divided into two groups(improved triangular flap group and traditional triangular flap group). Data of postoperative swelling, pain and trismus were recorded 2 and 7 days after surgery, and compared between the two groups. Results There were less severe facial swelling(Z=-3.432, P<0.05) and trismus(t=19.188, P<0.05) in improved triangular flap group after two days compared with that in the traditional triangular flap group. However, no significant differences were found in the two groups(P>0.05) after 7 days. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain after 2 and 7 days between two flap designs(P>0.05). Conclusion The improved triangular flap is more beneficial to the early recovery of patients after surgery and easier to master for surgeons.

Key words: flap designs, improved triangular flap, traditional triangular flap, mandibular third molar extraction surgery, postoperative complications

CLC Number: 

  • R782.11

TrendMD: 
[1] Piecuch JF. What strategies are helpful in the ope-rative management of third molars[J]. J Oral Maxi-llofac Surg, 2012, 70(9 Suppl 1):S25-S32.
[2] 杨建, 白晓峰, 卢利. 2种拔除阻生下颌第三磨牙手术切口的比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2012, 10(3):249-252. Yang J, Bai XF, Lu L. Comparison of two incisions for removal of impacted mandibular third molar[J]. Chin J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 10(3):249-252.
[3] 乔峰, 朱东望. 封套瓣与三角瓣对下颌第三磨牙拔除术后并发症的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2015, 43(1): 78-81. Qiao F, Zhu DW. The influence of the envelope flap and triangular flap designs on postoperative com-plications after mandibular third molar removal[J]. Tianjin Med J, 2015, 43(1):78-81.
[4] 张玉波. 两种翻瓣术在拔除下颌阻生智齿中的不良反应观察[J]. 温州医科大学学报, 2015(6):452- 454. Zhang YB. Adverse effect report about the 2 diffe-rence flap designs after mandibular third molar removal[J]. J Wenzhou Med Univ, 2015(6):452- 454.
[5] Andersson L, Kahnberg KE, Pogrel MA. Oral and maxillofacial surgery[M]. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell, 2010:179-338.
[6] Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, et al. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain[J]. Pain, 1983, 17 (1):45-56.
[7] 胡开进, 李永锋, 吴迪. 微动力系统在牙拔除术中的应用[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2015, 33(1):1-5. Hu KJ, Li YF, Wu D. Application of micro-power system in the surgery of tooth extraction[J]. West Chin J Stomatol, 2015, 33(1):1-5.
[8] Jerjes W, El-Maaytah M, Swinson B, et al. Experi-ence versus complication rate in third molar surgery [J]. Head Face Med, 2006, 2:14.
[9] 李永锋, 周宏志, 胡开进. 预防拔牙并发症的基本原则[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2014, 7(9):513-516. Li YF, Zhou HZ, Hu KJ. Basic principles on preven-ting tooth extraction complications[J]. Chin J Pract Stomatol, 2014, 7(9):513-516.
[10] 杨擎天, 胡开进, 薛洋, 等. 阻生下颌第三磨牙2种拔除方法的比较[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2010, 26 (1):71-74. Yang QT, Hu KJ, Xue Y, et al. A comparison of two methods of extracting impacted mandibular third molars[J]. J Pract Stomatol, 2010, 26(1):71-74.
[11] 张国权, 张国志, 翁汝涟, 等. 龈缘封套瓣用于拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙[J/CD]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2010, 4(6):604-607. Zhang GQ, Zhang GZ, Weng RL, et al. Envelope flap used for the extraction of impacted mandibular third-molar[J/CD]. Chin J Stomatol Res(Elect Vers), 2010, 4(6):604-607.
[12] Baqain ZH, Al-Shafii A, Hamdan AA, et al. Flap design and mandibular third molar surgery: a split mouth randomized clinical study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 41(8):1020-1024.
[13] Goldsmith SM, De Silva RK, Tong DC, et al. Influ-ence of a pedicle flap design on acute posto-perative sequelae after lower third molar removal[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 41(3):371-375.
[14] Kirk DG, Liston PN, Tong DC, et al. Influence of two different flap designs on incidence of pain, swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis in the week following third molar surgery[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2007, 104(1):e1-e6.
[15] 周宏志, 胡开进. 下颌第三磨牙拔除术后疼痛的临床分析及预防[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2010, 28(2): 153-157. Zhou HZ, Hu KJ. Pain and prevention in extraction of the mandibular third molar[J]. West Chin J Stomatol, 2010, 28(2):153-157.
[16] Gbotolorun OM, Arotiba GT, Ladeinde AL. Assess-ment of factors associated with surgical difficulty in impacted mandibular third molar extraction[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 65(10):1977-1983.
[17] 邱蔚六, 张震康, 张志愿. 口腔颌面外科学[M]. 6版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008:81-95. Qiu WL, Zhang ZK, Zhang ZY. Oral and maxillo-facial surgery[M]. 6th ed. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2008:81-95.
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(06): .
[2] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[3] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[4] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[5] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[6] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(04): .
[7] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 2005, 32(06): 458 -460 .
[8] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 2005, 32(06): 452 -454 .
[9] . [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2008, 35(S1): .
[10] . [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2008, 35(S1): .