ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Electrocautery and Scalpel Incisions in the Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars is routinely performed using scalpel blade incisions; however, electrocautery has been proposed as an alternative due to its hemostatic advantage. Limited evidence exists comparing both techniques with respect to intraoperative efficiency and postoperative outcomes. Aim The main aim of this study is to compare electrocautery and scalpel blade incisions during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars in terms of operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, facial swelling, trismus, and wound healing. Materials and methods A prospective split-mouth randomized study was conducted on 40 patients with bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. Each patient received an electrocautery incision on one side (study site) and a scalpel blade incision on the contralateral side (control site). The time taken for flap elevation and intraoperative blood loss were recorded. Postoperative pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at preoperative and 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours and at 7 days. Facial swelling and mouth opening were evaluated preoperatively and on postoperative days 3 and 7. Wound healing was assessed using the Landry healing index on days 7 and 14. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent t-test and repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.05). Results Electrocautery significantly reduced flap elevation time (6.65 ± 0.53 min vs. 7.31 ± 0.57 min; p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (1.11 ± 0.42 mL vs. 1.66 ± 0.42 mL; p < 0.001). Pain scores peaked within 48 hours in both groups, with significantly lower pain in the electrocautery group at 24 hours (p = 0.047). No significant intergroup differences were observed for facial swelling or trismus at any time point (p > 0.05). Wound healing on day 7 was significantly better in the scalpel group (p < 0.001); however, by day 14, healing outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.562). Conclusion Electrocautery provides superior intraoperative efficiency by reducing surgical time and blood loss, with comparable postoperative outcomes to scalpel blade incisions. Although early wound healing may be delayed with electrocautery, long-term healing is unaffected. Electrocautery can be considered a safe and effective alternative for incisions in mandibular 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.