ArticleCureus2023
A Comparison Between Comma Incision and Ward's Incision in Third Molar Extraction in Terms of Postoperative Sequel.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim We aim to look at the differences between the standard Ward's incision and the comma-shaped incision and how they affect complications after surgery to remove an impacted mandibular third molar. Materials and methods Mandibular third molars had to be carefully extracted from a total of 40 patients who were randomly divided into two groups of 20 patients each. At first, patients were evaluated before surgery. In group A, a standard Ward's incision was made, and in group B, a comma incision was made to match the mucoperiosteal fold. Afterward, the impacted third molars were carefully removed. The evaluation criteria for pain, swelling, lockjaw, and healing of wounds were done before surgery, after three hours, and on the first, third, and seventh day after surgery. Result The pain scores that were recorded right after surgery, three hours later, and on days 1, 3, and 7 in the surgical area with comma-shaped incision were all lower than the pain scores that were recorded in the area where standard incisions were made. Enlarging was less with comma entry point than with standard Ward's incision. After surgery, there was a big difference between the two entry points in how the mouth opened and how the wounds were fixed. These findings showed that the comma incision is better than the standard Ward's incision when it comes to pain, enlargement, lockjaw, and healing of wounds. Conclusion The study results showed that the comma-shaped incision was better than the traditional method (Ward's incision) because there were fewer problems after surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.