Cargando…

Effects of Flap Design on the Periodontal Health of Second Lower Molars after Impacted Third Molar Extraction

The purpose of this study was to compare the envelope flap and triangular flap for impacted lower third molar (M3) extraction and their effects on the periodontal health of adjacent second molars (M2). A population of 60 patients undergoing M3 extraction with the envelope flap (Group A) or triangula...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Passarelli, Pier Carmine, Lopez, Michele Antonio, Netti, Andrea, Rella, Edoardo, Leonardis, Marta De, Svaluto Ferro, Luigi, Lopez, Andrea, Garcia-Godoy, Franklin, D’Addona, Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9777857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36553934
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122410
Descripción
Sumario:The purpose of this study was to compare the envelope flap and triangular flap for impacted lower third molar (M3) extraction and their effects on the periodontal health of adjacent second molars (M2). A population of 60 patients undergoing M3 extraction with the envelope flap (Group A) or triangular flap (Group B) was analyzed, comparing probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival recession (REC) recorded at six sites (disto-lingual, mid-lingual, mesio-lingual, disto-vestibular, mid-vestibular, and mesio-vestibular) before (T(0)) and 6 months after extraction (T(1)). There was a statistically significant mean difference in PPD and CAL at two sites, disto-vestibular (dv) and disto-lingual (dl), between values recorded before and 6 months after surgery for either Group A or Group B. Furthermore, for the same periodontal records, at 6 months after surgery, a statistically significant difference was recorded between younger and older patients, implying that the healing process was more beneficial for younger patients. No significant differences were found between the two groups (A and B) in PPDdl, PPDdv, CALdl, and CALdv, confirming that the mucoperiosteal flap design does not influence the periodontal healing process of second molars.