Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions?

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the discomfort and surgical outcomes of a piezosurgery device with those of rotatory instruments in lower third molar extraction. Materials and Methods A split-mouth, randomized, unblinded clinical study was designed; the 2 molars had to have the same extraction difficulty score. The test side was extracted using a piezosurgery technique and the control side was extracted using a conventional handpiece. The primary endpoint was patient discomfort evaluated with the Postoperative Symptom Severity (PoSSe) scale, which was administered to each patient; secondary endpoints were pain, trismus, swelling, and surgical time evaluation. Paired-samples t test and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used to compare outcomes within patients. Results Ten consecutive patients (6 female, 4 male; mean age, 22.4 ± 2.3 yr) were recruited. The total score on the PoSSe scale was significantly lower for piezosurgery compared with the conventional rotating handpiece (24.7 ± 10.3 vs 36.0 ± 7.6; t = -4.27; P =.002). Moreover, postoperative swelling 1 week after surgery was significantly lower for piezosurgery than for the conventional rotating handpiece (2.75 ± 0.23 vs 3.1 ± 0.39 cm; t = -2.63; P =.027). Conclusions Piezosurgery was associated with less postoperative discomfort and yielded better results for swelling. Piezosurgery seems to be a good technique in daily surgical practice, especially if applied in the critical steps in which safety and respect for soft tissue, bone, and nerves are necessary