ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of patient comfort and satisfaction after the surgical removal of mandibular impacted molars using a piezo-electric technique: A randomized double-blind clinical trial.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This is a double clinical trial conducted to study the patient satisfaction and comfort during and after surgical removal of impacted mandibular 3rd molar using Piezo electric tips. Material and methods: Two groups of 25 each [14 (56 %) males and 11 (44 %) females] and [18 (72 % males and 07 (28 %) females] represented the Rotary and Piezo groups respectively with bilateral impactions. one side of the patient is operated by piezo and the other side by rotary instrument after a gap of 2-3 week between the procedures. The variables considered are pain, swelling, trismus, patient satisfaction and comfort. The readings were taken on base line,3rd day,7th and 14th day. Results: Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. The surgery time taken was more in the Piezo group (26.96 ± 12.201) in comparison with the Rotary group (21.32 ± 12.786- (p = 0.011∗). Satisfaction was rated better in the Piezo group (3.18 ± 0.909 vs 2.88 ± 0.881) (p = 0.013∗). Tactile sensation was less in the Piezo group (1.24 ± 0.436) vs (2.28 ± 0.678) (p = 0.001). Less pain was reported in the piezo group patients and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant only during the third day follow up (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The overall patient satisfaction and comfort was better in piezo in spite of longer duration of surgery. It provides better quality of life as the patients experienced less pain and the total number of analgesics taken is significantly less compared to rotary group.
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.