Evaluation of the efficacy of three different bone removal methods in the extraction of mesial and low impacted mandibular wisdom teeth

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2026.01.011

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery and high-speed turbine drill in the extraction of mesial and low impacted mandibular wisdom teeth. METHODS: A total of 119 patients with mesial and low mandibular impacted wisdom teeth who were admitted from April 2021 to July 2023 were selected and divided into group A(n=38), group B(n=40) and group C(n=41) according to different bone removal methods. Group A was treated with high-speed turbine drilling, group B was treated with Er:YAG laser and group C was treated with piezosurgery. Postoperative indexes, visual analogue score (VAS) of postoperative pain, facial swelling, mouth opening limitation, complications and postoperative satisfaction were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: The intraoperative blood loss in group C was significantly lower than that in groups A and B (P<0.05), and that in group B was significantly lower than that in group A (P<0.05). The tooth extraction time in group B was significantly longer than that in groups A and C(P<0.05), and that in group C was significantly longer than that in group A (P<0.05). Pain VAS of the three groups on the 7th day after surgery was significantly lower than that on the 1st day after surgery (P<0.05), and pain VAS of groups B and C were significantly lower than that of group A (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between group B and C (P>0.05). The degree of facial swelling on the 7th day after surgery in the three groups was significantly lower than that on the 3rd day after surgery(P<0.05), and groups B and C were significantly lower than group A(P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C(P>0.05). The degree of mouth opening limitation on the 7th day after surgery in the three groups was significantly lower than that on the 3rd day after surgery (P<0.05), and groups B and C were significantly lower than group A (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C(P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the total incidence of complications among the three groups(P>0.05). The postoperative satisfaction of group C was significantly higher than group A and group B(P<0.05), and the postoperative satisfaction of group B was significantly higher than group A(P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that operation time <20 min, intraoperative blood loss<5 mL and intraoperative pain VAS <2 were independent protective factors for the improvement of patients' satisfaction (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Er:YAG laser, high-speed turbine drill and piezosurgery have better effects in the extraction of mesial and low mandibular impacted wisdom teeth. Both of them can reduce postoperative pain and intraoperative trauma, improve the degree of facial swelling and mouth opening limitation of patients. Moreover, compared with high-speed turbo drill and Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery can improve patients' satisfaction.

Key words: Er:YAG, Piezosurgery, High-speed turbine drill, Mesial and low mandibular impacted wisdom teeth, Complications, Satisfaction

CLC Number:

R782.1

Zhou Qian, Qin Tingfei, Qin Xucai. Evaluation of the efficacy of three different bone removal methods in the extraction of mesial and low impacted mandibular wisdom teeth[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2026, 35(1): 66-71.

References

[1] Shenoi RS, Rajguru JG, Parate SR, et al.Compliance of postoperative instructions following the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars[J]. Indian J Dent Res, 2021, 32(1): 87-91.
[2] Sifuentes-Cervantes JS, Carrillo-Morales F, Castro-Nunez J, et al.Third molar surgery: past, present, and the future[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2021, 132(5): 523-531.
[3] Jiang S, Zhou B, Li Z, et al.Comparison of the effects of two extraction methods on the alveolar ridge preservation of maxillary anterior teeth[J]. Pak J Med Sci, 2023, 39(2): 549-552.
[4] Blagova B, Krastev D, Malinova L.Conventional drilling versus ultrasound and laser osteotomy in mandibular third molar surgery: a comparative study[J]. Lasers Surg Med, 2023, 55(10): 862-870.
[5] Karasu AE, Goker Kamali S, Turkaydln D.Comparison of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite in immature teeth after needle irrigation, ultrasonic irrigation, EDDY, Er:YAG, and diode lasers[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2022,38(1):8.
[6] Genç BGÇ, Orhan K, Or S.A clinical comparison of Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery, and conventional bur methods in the impacted third molar surgery[J]. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg, 2023, 41(6): 283-290.
[7] Shafshak TS, Elnemr R.The visual analogue scale versus numerical rating scale in measuring pain severity and predicting disability in low back pain[J]. J Clin Rheumatol, 2021, 27(7): 282-285.
[8] Zhao S, Wang Y, Yang X, et al.Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in close proximity to the inferior alveolar canal with coronectomy-miniscrew traction to avoid nerve injury[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2023, 27(8): 4279-4288.
[9] Ye LY, Wang LF, Gao JX.Pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema secondary to dental extraction: two case reports[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2022,10(27): 9904-9910.
[10] Jiang JQ, Kang YF, Chen KN, et al.Endoscopic visualization of the inferior alveolar nerve associated with somatosensory changes after impacted mandibular third molar extraction[J]. Odontology, 2023, 111(4): 982-992.
[11] Sales PHDH, Barros AWP, Silva PGB, et al.Is the Er: YAG laser effective in reducing pain, edema, and trismus after removal of impacted mandibular third molars? a meta-analysis[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 80(3): 501-516.
[12] Santos RMC, Scatolin RS, de Souza Salvador SL, et al. Er:YAG laser in selective caries removal and dentin treatment with chitosan: a randomized clinical trial in primary molars[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2023, 38(1): 208.
[13] Kisel J, Khatib M, Cavale N.A Comparison between piezosurgery and conventional osteotomies in rhinoplasty on post-operative oedema and ecchymosis: a systematic review[J]. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 2023, 47(3): 1144-1154.
[14] Allison JR, Currie CC, Edwards DC, et al.Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2021, 48(1): 61-72.
[15] Civak T, Ustun T, Yilmaz HN, et al.Postoperative evaluation of Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery, and rotary systems used for osteotomy in mandibular third-molar extractions[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2021, 49(1): 64-69.
[16] 李燕香, 闫利君, 凌小婉, 等.微创器械与微动力设备在牙拔除术中的应用进展[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 21(2):191-196.
[17] Wang J, Chen Y, Zhang B, et al.Clinical efficacy of Er:YAG laser application in pulpotomy of primary molars: a 2-year follow-up study[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2022, 37(9): 3705-3712.
[18] Yong J, Li P, Mizrahi IK, et al.Effect of low-level Er: YAG (2 940 nm) laser irradiation on the photobiomodulation of mitogen-activated protein kinase cellular signaling pathway of rodent cementoblasts[J]. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed), 2022, 27(2): 62.
[19] Pandey V, Chandra J, Sequeira J.Piezosurgery versus conventional method alveoloplasty: a comparative study[J]. J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 2022, 21(3): 1032-1037.
[20] Chemaly N, Franzen R, Daou M, et al.Er,Cr:YSGG laser surface modification effect on dentin bonding to zirconia: an in vitro study[J]. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg, 2022, 40(8): 573-579.
[21] 郭涛, 张鹏飞, 许音, 等. Er:YAG激光与超声骨刀在拔除下颌低位垂直阻生齿中的临床疗效比较[J]. 河北医科大学学报, 2022, 43(9): 1073-1078.
[22] 薛睿, 马振, 陈兴金, 等.气动外科专用切割手机与超声骨刀在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除中的效果比较[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2025, 23(3):258-263.
[23] 张英豪, 赵宁, 赵爱杰, 等. Er:YAG激光与涡轮手机去骨拔除下颌低位水平阻生智齿的效果比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2023, 32(1): 75-79.