ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel vs Turbine Drill in Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: Impact on Postoperative Pain and Inflammation.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare postoperative outcomes between ultrasonic bone scalpel and turbine drill techniques for impacted mandibular third molar extraction, focusing on pain, inflammation, and recovery parameters. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 109 patients treated between 2020 and 2022, divided into an ultrasonic group (n=55; piezoelectric osteotomy) and a turbine group (n=54; high-speed drilling). Primary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, facial swelling, maximum mouth opening, and pain scores assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 6, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were collected preoperatively and on postoperative day 3 to quantify levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), substance P (SP), serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and myeloperoxidase (MPO). Results: The ultrasonic group demonstrated 35% shorter operative time (20.04 vs 31.06 min; P<0.001, Cohen's d=2.84), 21% less blood loss (7.94 vs 10.01 mL; P<0.001, d=2.95), significantly lower VAS scores at 24h (3.25 vs 3.65; P=0.036) and 72h (0.52 vs 0.85; P=0.009), and 40% reduced analgesic use (2.1 vs 3.5 tablets; P<0.001), alongside biomarker reductions including 41% lower CGRP and 33% lower TNF-α (P<0.001). Conclusion: The ultrasonic bone scalpel demonstrates superior clinical outcomes including reduced operative duration, attenuated pain/inflammation, and faster recovery, though limitations include retrospective design and short-term follow-up.
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.