ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Different Surgical Removal Techniques for Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Impactions: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The removal of impacted mandibular third molars (wisdom teeth) is a common surgical procedure. Multiple techniques are used, including conventional drilling, piezosurgery, and flap designs, each with distinct outcomes in terms of postoperative pain, swelling, and healing. This study compares the outcomes of different techniques to guide optimal clinical choices. Methods: A comparative clinical study was conducted with patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction using three surgical techniques: traditional rotary drilling, piezosurgery, and a minimally invasive approach. Parameters assessed included postoperative pain (measured on a visual analog scale), swelling (using facial measurements), and healing (evaluated by the healing index). Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Results: Piezosurgery demonstrated significantly lower pain and swelling scores compared to conventional rotary techniques ( Conclusion: Piezosurgery provides better postoperative comfort with reduced pain and swelling, making it a preferable option for impacted mandibular third molar extraction. Future studies should explore long-term outcomes to confirm these findings.
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.