ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2026
Effects of impacted mandibular third molar surgery performed with piezosurgery and conventional systems on postoperative sequelae and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough piezosurgery has become a common technique in maxillofacial procedures—including third molar extractions—its advantages over conventional rotary instruments regarding postoperative recovery are still debated. Therefore, this randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate and compare postoperative complications following the removal of impacted mandibular third molars using either piezosurgery or conventional rotary instruments.
methodsThis randomized controlled clinical trial included a total of 50 participants who were randomly allocated into two groups: the piezosurgery group and the conventional surgery group. Postoperative outcomes were assessed in patients who underwent surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars using one of these two methods. Pain levels were recorded daily using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), whereas swelling, mouth opening, and oral health–related quality of life were evaluated before surgery and again on postoperative days two and seven.
resultsThe piezosurgery technique resulted in a faster reduction of postoperative swelling on the second day; however, by the seventh day, no statistically significant differences were found between the two surgical techniques with respect to postoperative swelling. Similarly, there were no significant variations between the piezosurgery and conventional methods in terms of postoperative pain, mouth opening, or oral health–related quality of life throughout the observation period.
conclusionPiezosurgery appears to offer a potential advantage; however, apart from reducing swelling, it does not demonstrate any significant superiority in terms of mouth opening, pain, or quality of life. Further standardized, large-scale randomized controlled studies are needed to obtain stronger evidence regarding the efficacy of both techniques.
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.