Modified distolingual splitting technique for removal of impacted mandibular third molars: Incidence of postoperative sequelae

Hochwald, David A.; Davis, W. Howard; Martinoff, James T.

doi:10.1016/0030-4220(83)90047-6

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Factors which appear to be associated with post-operative infection include full or partial bony impaction, rather than the routine extraction of teeth, 5 and the presence of preoperative infection. 6 The reported incidence of postoperative infection varies between 1-12.6% [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (Table 3) There was also variation in the reported rate of alveolar osteitis ranging from 1% to 6.3%. 16,[19][20] Post-operative complications and prophylactic antiobiotics There is a considerable volume of evidence that advocates antibiotics for the prevention of infection following third molar surgery.…”

Section: Complications After Third Molar Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…45 Antibiotic administration is not without risks including anaphylaxis, development of resistant bacteria and unjustified medical costs. 37,46 Other undesirable consequences include Hochwald et al 7 1.0 Rud 8 4.0 Curran et al 9 8.2 Goldberg et al 10 4.2 Osborne et al 11 3.4 Sisk et al 12 1.2 Mitchell et al 13 11.0 Happonen et al 14 11.8 Loucota 15 1-5.0 Chiapasco et al 16 1.5 Piecuch et al 17 3.5 Nordenram et al 18 12.6 OPINION the interaction with other medical products and therefore an indirect effect in the management of other medical conditions. Direct toxicity may affect the gastrointestinal tract with nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain.…”

Section: Antibiotic Choice and Dose And Parenteral Prophylaxismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Antibiotic prophylaxis and third molar surgery

Martin

Kanatas²,

Hardy³

2005

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Complications After Third Molar Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Antibiotic Choice and Dose And Parenteral Prophylaxismentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic prophylaxis and third molar surgery

Martin

Kanatas²,

Hardy³

2005

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 Using these criteria, in whole or in part, the incidence of reported wound infection, whether using antibiotic prophylaxis or not, is reported in the range of 1-27 per cent (Table 1). [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] However, the reported incidence is around 3-5 per cent.…”

Section: The Nature and Incidence Of Bacterial Wound Infection In Denmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic prophylaxis for dentoalveolar surgery: is it indicated?

Lawler

Sambrook

Goss

2005

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usually dentists in Australia give patients oral antibiotics after dentoalveolar surgery as a prophylaxis against wound infection. When this practice is compared to the principle of antibiotic prophylaxis in major surgery it is found to be at variance in a number of ways. In major surgery, the risk of infection should be high, and the consequences of infection severe or catastrophic, before antibiotic prophylaxis is ordered. If it is provided then a high dose of an appropriate spectrum antibiotic must be present in the blood prior to the first incision. Other factors which need to be considered are the degree of tissue trauma, the extent of host compromise, other medical comorbidities and length of hospitalization. Standardized protocols of administration have been determined and evaluated for most major surgical procedures. Dentoalveolar surgery is undoubtedly a skilled and technically challenging procedure. However, in contrast to major surgical procedures, it has a less than five per cent infection rate and rarely has severe adverse consequences. Dentoalveolar surgery should be of short duration with minimal tissue damage and performed in the dental chair under local anaesthesia. Controlled studies for both mandibular third molar surgery and placement of dental implants show little or no evidence of benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis and there is an adverse risk from the antibiotic. This review concludes that there is no case for antibiotic prophylaxis for most dentoalveolar surgery in fit patients. In the few cases where it can be considered, a single high preoperative dose should be given.

show abstract

“…Perforation of the lingual plate and the lingual bone split technique have been found to be associated with LN damage. It remains unknown whether elevation of the lingual flap and an attempt to protect the LN by an instrument increase the risk of LN damage 4,12,13,25,[28][29][30]32,37,[42][43][44][45][46]52 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Factors such as the age of the patient, depth of tooth impaction, proximity of the roots to the IAN, surgical experience of the operator and surgical technique have been proposed as being associated with an increased risk of IAN injury 4,[6][7][8][12][13][14][15]22,25,26,[28][29][30]32,37,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]51,53 . Perforation of the lingual plate and the lingual bone split technique have been found to be associated with LN damage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of neurosensory deficits and recovery after lower third molar surgery: a prospective clinical study of 4338 cases

Cheung

Leung

Chow

et al. 2010

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

205

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prospective study of all lower third molar surgery performed in the outpatient extraction clinic of a teaching dental hospital was conducted from January 1998 through October 2005 to determine the incidence of subsequent neurosensory deficit due to inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and lingual nerve (LN) injury, to examine possible contributing risk factors and to describe the pattern of recovery. 3595 patients were included (61% female, 39% male; age range, 14-82 years). Of the 4338 lower third molar extractions performed by various grades of operators, 0.35% developed IAN deficit and 0.69% developed LN deficit. Distoangular impaction was found to increase the risk of LN deficit significantly (p<0.001). Depth of impaction was related to the risk of IAN deficit (p<0.001). Undergraduates caused more LN deficits (p<0.001). Sex, age, raising of a lingual flap, protection of LN with a retractor, removal of distolingual cortex, tooth sectioning and difficulty in tooth elevation were not significantly related to IAN or LN injury. Postoperative recovery from IAN and LN deficits was noted most significantly at 3 and 6 months, respectively. By the end of the follow-up period, 67% of IAN deficits and 72% of LN deficits had recovered completely.

show abstract

Modified distolingual splitting technique for removal of impacted mandibular third molars: Incidence of postoperative sequelae

Cited by 33 publications

References 6 publications

Antibiotic prophylaxis and third molar surgery

Antibiotic prophylaxis and third molar surgery

Antibiotic prophylaxis for dentoalveolar surgery: is it indicated?

Incidence of neurosensory deficits and recovery after lower third molar surgery: a prospective clinical study of 4338 cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About