Fogorvosi szemle, 2012 (105. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2012-03-01 / 1. szám
FOGORVOSI SZEMLE 105. évf. 1.SZ. 2012. 33 10. Penarrocha Diago M, Gálán Gil S, Penarrocha Diago M: Vestibular bone window for the extraction of impacted lower third molars: Four case reports. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008; 1; 13: 508-510. 11. Richardson DT, Dodson TB: Risk of periodontal defects after third molar surgery: An exercise in evidence-based clinical decision-making. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 100: 133-137. Dr. Vécsey Zs., Dr. Joób-Fancsaly Á: Examination of periodontal status after removal of impacted lower wisdom teeth, a comparative analysis of two flap design Aim of the study Before removing impacted lower wisdom teeth, a mucoperiosteal flap is prepared. In the practice we use 2 types of flaps: with or without a releasing incision. There are few publications about how the removal of impacted wisdom teeth damage the periodontium of the second molars. In our study, we examined whether there is any difference in the healing between the two flap designs. Materials and methods A total of 76 lower wisdom teeth have been removed. Two types of flaps were used. Prior surgery, at suture removal, 3 and 6 months after surgery 6 periodontal depth points were investigated around the second molars. We compared the technical events during surgery, complaints, probing depths after surgery and their correlance in function of flap design. Results After removal of lower impacted wisdom teeth, we measured greater probing depths using envelope flap than L-shaped flap. Flowever, this difference was not significant, and after 6 months, no differences were noted. Key words: wisdom tooth, flap design, periodontal probing depth
