English

Abstract

The average time consumed for disimpaction of mandibular third molar using rotatory instruments was approximately 17 mins and 23 mins while using a piezotome. The authors introduce a new technique of disimpaction of mandibular third molar with the least amount of bone removal ever achieved during mandibular third molar removal. This technique can be readily included in routine clinical practice and can be performed by using routine rotary instruments. This technique was successfully accomplished in 10 individuals with the least amount of discomfort and post-operative complications reported from day 1 to day 14. The procedure was evaluated based on time of the procedure, pain score, bleeding, nerve injury, trismus, swelling & dry socket. Third molar removal has been the most frequently performed oral surgical procedure in the modern world of dentistry.1 Although, mandibular third molar is the most commonly performed procedure, it demands skill, technique and experience. Several techniques have been implied for disimpaction of mandibular third molar, but every method involves either considerable amount of bone removal or splitting the bone. Bone manipulation is done by using a rotary instruments or chisel and mallet. The most popular techniques are buccal bone guttering, distal bone removal, lingual bone split technique and lingual bone guttering.2 According to the traditional classifications of impacted mandibular third molar (Pell & Gregory and Winter’s classification), the minimum amount of bucco-distal bone removed during disimpaction of mesioangularly positioned class I A impacted mandibular third molar using rotary instruments and conventional techniques can be calculated as 157.5 mm2 (volume of a rectangle = L X W X H; where L = 15 mm, W = 1.5 mm [width of the bur] and H = 7 mm). The mandibular third molar requiring osteotomy and tooth section have the highest risk of complications3. Surgical time had significantly increased in cases which required osteotomy and tooth section. Post-operative swelling and pain has been recorded as significant complications after using rotary instruments via buccal approach followed by use of chisel & mallet and least in lingual split approach. On the contrary, post-operative nerve injury and trismus were significantly high in lingual split technique. Dry socket was more in patients of bur technique.2