Six-Month Soft Tissues Healing after Lower Third Molar Extraction: Comparison of Two Different Access Flaps

Abstract

Background: As specific flap designs performed for lower third molar extractions usually influence periodontal healing of the adjacent first and second molars, this study aimed to evaluate the periodontal conditions of these sites after 6 months post-surgery. Methods: Forty patients, aged 14–30 years, were included. Surgical extraction of the lower third molar was performed through a flap with papilla detachment (a modified envelope technique with detachment of gingival papilla between the first and second molars) or a trapezoidal flap (characterized by mesial- and distal-releasing incisions). Periodontal parameters at the first and second molar sites were assessed for visible plaque index, bleeding on probing, recession, probing pocket depth, and clinical attachment loss before surgery (T0), one month (T1), and six months after extraction (T2). Results: No statistical differences were found for the plaque and bleeding indexes between the two flaps at each observation time and considering both time intervals. For recession, no statistical differences were found between the two flaps considering the final time interval. For probing pocket depth at the second molar site, both techniques registered a significant increase between T0 and T1, followed by a decrease up to T2. For clinical attachment loss, mean values assessed for the first and second molar sites demonstrated evidently increased values between T0 and T1, followed by moderate decreases up to T2. Conclusions: Considering short (T1) and mid-term (T2) follow-ups, a specific flap design does not seem to particularly influence periodontal healing six months after surgery.

Evaluation of a New Simplified Approach for Upper Superficial Impacted Third Molar Extraction—A Retrospective Split-Mouth Study

“…Flap design has assumed particular importance in recent years, especially for the extraction of impacted mandibular wisdom teeth. Attention has been paid to improving periodontal healing in the second molar and wound closure [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. However, in these studies, no significant advantages were observed for postoperative pain or edema.…”