Cargando…
Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study
This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10047157/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36975557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11030060 |
_version_ | 1785013850788069376 |
---|---|
author | Bennardo, Francesco Barone, Selene Vocaturo, Camillo Gheorghe, Dorin Nicolae Cosentini, Giorgio Antonelli, Alessandro Giudice, Amerigo |
author_facet | Bennardo, Francesco Barone, Selene Vocaturo, Camillo Gheorghe, Dorin Nicolae Cosentini, Giorgio Antonelli, Alessandro Giudice, Amerigo |
author_sort | Bennardo, Francesco |
collection | PubMed |
description | This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requiring the extraction of three non-adjacent teeth were included. Each tooth was randomly assigned to a specific treatment (control, MM, or piezosurgery). Outcome measures were the severity of symptoms after surgery, wound healing assessed at the 10-days follow-up visit, and the time taken to complete each procedure (excluding suturing). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests were performed to evaluate eventual differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the compared methods in postoperative pain and healing, and no additional complications were reported. MM required significantly less time to perform a tooth extraction, followed by conventional instruments and piezosurgery, in increasing order (p < 0.05). Overall, the present findings suggest the use of MM and piezosurgery as valid options for dental extractions. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm and extend this study’s results, facilitating the selection of the optimal method for an individual patient depending on the patient’s needs and preferences. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10047157 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100471572023-03-29 Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study Bennardo, Francesco Barone, Selene Vocaturo, Camillo Gheorghe, Dorin Nicolae Cosentini, Giorgio Antonelli, Alessandro Giudice, Amerigo Dent J (Basel) Article This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requiring the extraction of three non-adjacent teeth were included. Each tooth was randomly assigned to a specific treatment (control, MM, or piezosurgery). Outcome measures were the severity of symptoms after surgery, wound healing assessed at the 10-days follow-up visit, and the time taken to complete each procedure (excluding suturing). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests were performed to evaluate eventual differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the compared methods in postoperative pain and healing, and no additional complications were reported. MM required significantly less time to perform a tooth extraction, followed by conventional instruments and piezosurgery, in increasing order (p < 0.05). Overall, the present findings suggest the use of MM and piezosurgery as valid options for dental extractions. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm and extend this study’s results, facilitating the selection of the optimal method for an individual patient depending on the patient’s needs and preferences. MDPI 2023-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10047157/ /pubmed/36975557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11030060 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Bennardo, Francesco Barone, Selene Vocaturo, Camillo Gheorghe, Dorin Nicolae Cosentini, Giorgio Antonelli, Alessandro Giudice, Amerigo Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study |
title | Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study |
title_full | Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study |
title_fullStr | Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study |
title_short | Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study |
title_sort | comparison between magneto-dynamic, piezoelectric, and conventional surgery for dental extractions: a pilot study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10047157/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36975557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11030060 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bennardofrancesco comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy AT baroneselene comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy AT vocaturocamillo comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy AT gheorghedorinnicolae comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy AT cosentinigiorgio comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy AT antonellialessandro comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy AT giudiceamerigo comparisonbetweenmagnetodynamicpiezoelectricandconventionalsurgeryfordentalextractionsapilotstudy |