ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Efficacy of 45-Degree Turbine Handpiece Versus Conventional Motor Handpiece in Surgical Removal of Impacted Third Molar: 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy of the conventional motor handpiece and the 45-degree turbine handpiece in the surgical removal of impacted third molars, with a focus on operative time, pain, swelling, trismus, and the risk of subcutaneous emphysema. Methods: A total of 240 patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A (n = 120) underwent surgery using the conventional motor handpiece, while Group B (n = 120) used the 45-degree turbine handpiece. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated on days 3, 7, and 30, including pain (VAS score), swelling (C-T and O-A measurements), and trismus (mouth opening). Results: No significant difference was observed in operative time between the two groups ( Conclusion: The 45-degree turbine handpiece offers advantages in terms of reduced postoperative pain, swelling, and faster recovery of mouth opening compared to the conventional motor handpiece. However, the risk of subcutaneous emphysema necessitates caution when using the turbine handpiece in impacted third molar 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.