Resumen de Double blind randomized clinical trial comparing minimally- invasive envelope flap and conventional envelope flap on impacted lower third molar surgery
Samuel Macedo Costa, Bruna Campos Ribeiro, Alice Soares Gonçalves, Laura Maria de Almeida Araújo, Guilherme Lacerda de Toledo, Márcio Bruno Figueiredo Amaral
The latest trend in surgery is to look for minimally invasive procedures, with fewer complications and a shorter recovery time. This study aims to compare the minimally- invasive envelope flap, with smaller incision and fewer dissection and the conventional envelope flap, with a 20mm incision, on impacted mandibular third molar surgery, focusing on the hypothesis that there were no differences in postoperative outcomes.
A double-blind randomized clinical trial was designed to compare both incisions, focused on determining the approach with minor postoperative side-effects and minor impact on quality-of-life. A total of 60 patients were enrolled for the study if their presented impacted mandibular third molar and was 18-years-old or more. Both groups were evaluated from time elapsed on the surgery, maximum mouth opening, swelling and quality of life assessment.
The flap choice influenced facial swelling (p=0,03), pain on the first three days (p=0,037), interference with oral hygiene (p=0,019) and discomfort on speech (p=0,07). Chewing, swallowing, trismus, pain after seven days, postoperative complications and other quality-of-life arrangements were no different between groups.
The minimally- invasive envelope flap could lead to a less painful experience for the patient, with fewer impact on the oral hygiene and speech discomfort.
