Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Comparative evaluation of acute stress and clinical efficacy between piezosurgery and conventional rotatory technique in transalveolar extraction of impacted mandibular third molars-A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is commonly associated with postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus. Conventional rotatory osteotomy, though widely used, may cause thermal and mechanical trauma. Piezosurgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative that may improve clinical outcomes and reduce physiological stress, which can be objectively assessed using salivary biomarkers. PURPOSE: To compare acute stress response and clinical efficacy between piezosurgery and conventional rotatory technique in transalveolar extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients (aged 19-40 years) requiring transalveolar extraction. Participants were randomly allocated into piezosurgery (n = 30) and conventional rotatory groups (n = 30). PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE: Type of osteotomy technique (piezosurgery vs conventional rotatory).
main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were salivary cortisol and salivary alpha-amylase levels. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain (VAS), facial swelling, mouth opening, duration of surgery, and patient comfort. COVARIATES: Age, gender, impaction difficulty (Pederson's difficulty index), type of impaction, and duration of surgery. ANALYSES: Data were analyzed using an independent t-test with a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsPostoperative pain showed no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). The piezosurgery group demonstrated significantly reduced postoperative swelling with a mean difference of approximately 2.07 mm (95% CI: -3.21 to -0.93, p = 0.001) and reduced trismus with improved mouth opening (mean difference: 0.31-0.70 cm across time points, 95% CI: approximately 0.19 to 0.88, p < 0.001). Additionally, higher patient comfort scores (mean difference: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.14, p < 0.001) and lower postoperative salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase levels (p < 0.001) were observed in the piezosurgery group. However, surgical duration was significantly longer in the piezosurgery group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Piezosurgery offers improved postoperative outcomes and reduced physiological stress compared to conventional techniques, despite longer operative time, making it a valuable alternative in third molar surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645621What 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.