Lingual nerve injury.

Abstract

I read with interest and disappointment the article by Pichler and Beirne titled “Lingual flap retraction and prevention of lingual nerve damage associated with third molar surgery: A systematic review of the literature” in the April 2001 issue of Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics (volume 91, pages 395-401). The reason for my disappointment is very simple. In 1996, I had prepared a study with Dr Mocan and Dr Kisnisci about the comparison of 2 surgical techniques for using third molar removal. 1 Mocan A Kişnişci R Üçok C. Stereophotogrammetric and clinical evaluation of morbidity after removal of lower third molars by two different surgical techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 54: 171-175 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar This study was designed for 20 patients in 2 groups, and we used Howarth's periosteal elevator for the reflection of lingual flap. We had an adequate follow-up period in our study, and there were no sensory problems in our study groups. Only one patient in our study group had dysphagia. I checked the references list; I also checked Table I (excluded articles) and Table II (selected articles), but I could not see my article in these lists. Have you any reasonable explanation for this elimination or for this classification method? I think I need a scientific explanation.