ArticleCureus2023
Comparative Study of the Surgical Excision of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars Using Surgical Burs and an Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy of Er:YAG Laser in the Extraction of Impacted Third Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The comparative study of temperature rise, time consuming and cut quality among piezosurgery, conventional rotary instruments and Er: YAG laser in apicectomy.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a New Simplified Approach for Upper Superficial Impacted Third Molar Extraction-A Retrospective Split-Mouth Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The use of lasers has increased in the field of dentistry in recent years. However, in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, the use of lasers has been largely restricted to soft tissue, and less focus is placed on the use of lasers for hard tissues. Aim The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of a erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser for cutting the bone while removing the impacted mandibular third molar with the use of a surgical bur. Methods The study assessed 80 subjects undergoing removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The subjects were recruited from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patiala, Punjab, India. They were randomly divided into two groups, each consisting of 40 subjects. Group I used an Er:YAG laser to remove the bone, while Group II used a surgical bur. Assessments and comparisons were made for complications, wound healing, trismus, edema, bleeding, and pain. Results The study examined the efficacy of the Er:YAG laser for cutting the bone and extracting the impacted mandibular third molars using a surgical bur in two groups of 80 patients each. When the laser was used in place of a surgical bur, Group I patients experienced less edema, bleeding, and discomfort; nevertheless, the difference was not statistically significant. Time taken by laser for bone cutting was significantly higher compared to the surgical bur. In Group I (laser), trismus existed for a longer time. For mouth opening, the preoperative mouth opening was comparable in the two groups with p = 0.87. Conclusion Pain, hemorrhage, and edema were lesser, and the time required for bone cutting was substantially longer in the laser group. Apart from these, laser-assisted intra-oral bone cutting should be preferred because of its less invasive nature, simpler procedure, and simpler osteotomy when compared to traditional surgical burs and also in anxiety-prone patients.
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.