Comparison of Pain, Wound Healing, Facial Edema, and Surgeon’s Comfort in Surgical Extraction of Impacted Third Molars: Surgical Scalpel Versus Radiofrequency Incision

Abstract

Background and Aim: This study aimed to compare the level of pain, wound healing, facial edema, and surgeon's comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using surgical scalpel versus radiofrequency (RF) incision. Materials and Methods: IThis split-mouth clinical trial evaluated 41 patients with bilateral impacted third molars in one jaw with the same Pederson difficulty index (between 5 and 7, moderate difficulty). The surgical incision was made using a surgical scalpel on one random side and an RF device on the contralateral side. The level of pain was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) 7 days postoperatively. The wound healing was evaluated using the wound evaluation scale (WES) 4 weeks postoperatively. Facial edema was quantified using a tape measure 7 days postoperatively. Surgeon's comfort was assessed by asking the surgeons regarding the level of easiness of the procedure. The pain score, wound healing score, facial edema, and surgeon's comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars were compared between the two sides using SPSS 22 via paired t-test and McNemar's test. Result: The surgeon's comfort was significantly higher in the use of a surgical scalpel (P<0.001). The difference in pain score (P=0.95), wound healing (P=0.32), and facial edema (P>0.05) was not significant between the two groups. Conclusion:The results of this study showed no significant difference in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using a surgical scalpel or an RF device regarding the level of pain, wound healing, or facial edema.

Evaluation of edema formation and salivary EGF related to 810 nm diode laser and conventional surgery after frenectomy

“…13 Anti-inflammatory drugs, cold application, or different surgical devices and adjunctive effects to reduce edema were compared. 1,14,15 The elastic tape measurement method is the most common method to measure the amount of edema. 14,16 The tape method has disadvantages, such as measuring by direct contact with the patient, reducing comfort, and the possibility of making the measurement incorrect.…”

“…1,14,15 The elastic tape measurement method is the most common method to measure the amount of edema. 14,16 The tape method has disadvantages, such as measuring by direct contact with the patient, reducing comfort, and the possibility of making the measurement incorrect. 17,18 The 3D face-scanning method has been reported to be a fast and reproducible measurement method, 17 and has been evaluated as an alternative to the tape measurement method.…”