The technical difficulties in oral surgery are leading many surgeons to believe that the coronectomy technique is always the best choice for the treatment of impacted third molars in intimate relation with the mandibular nerve. The objective of this study

  • Marcelo Pinheiro Guedes Uzeda Oral Surgery, Department, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão Oral Surgery, Department, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Institute of Biology, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
  • Ruth-Ann Jehovana Been Undergraduate Dental student, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Rodrigo Figueiredo de Brito Resende Oral Surgery, Department, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • José de Albuquerque Calasans-Maia Orthodontics Department, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Monica Diuana Calasans-Maia Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Institute of Biology, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Keywords: Mandibular Nerve, Oral Surgery, Paresthesia, Third Molar, Tooth Extraction

Abstract

The technical difficulties in oral surgery are leading many surgeons to believe that the coronectomy technique is always the best choice for the treatment of impacted third molars in intimate relation with the mandibular nerve. The objective of this study is to discuss conventional extraction and coronectomy, considering its respective advantages and the experience of the surgical team that can shed light on experts allowing to a better reflection on this trend and thus contributes to the best surgical choice. This clinical case reports a patient who presented the inferior third molar with impaction and root apices near of the mandibular nerve. Despite evidence to perform coronectomy, conventional extraction was done. The patient had no complications, displaying mild paresthesia during seven postoperative days. The immediate or late unpredictability of the coronectomy leads us to conclude that conventional extraction should be the technique of choice for the extraction of the third molar in close relation with the mandibular nerve, except in particular cases.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1- Renton T, Hankins M, Sproate C, McGurk M. A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars. British J Oral and Maxillofac Surg 2005; 43:7-12.
2- Goto S, Kurita K, Kuroiwa Y, Hatano Y, Kohara K, Izumiet M et al. Clinical and Dental Computed Tomographic Evaluation 1 Year After Coronectomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70:1023-1029.
3- Moreno-Vicente J, Schiavone-Mussano R, Clemente-Salas E, Marí-Roig A, Jané-Salas E, López-López J. Coronectomy versus surgical removal of the lower third molars with a high risk of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve. A bibliographical review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015; Jul 1;20 (4):e508-17.
4- Long H, Zhou Y, Liao L, Pyakurel U, Wang Y, Lai W. Coronectomy vs. Total Removal for Third Molar Extraction: A Systematic Review. J Dent Res. 2012; 91(7):659-665.
5- Martin A, Perinetti G, Costantinides F, Maglione M. Coronectomy as a surgical approach to impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review Head & Face Medicine. 2015; 11:9.
6- Al-Moraissi EA, Elmansi YA, Al-Sharaee YA, Alrmali AE, Alkhutari AS. Does the piezoelectric surgical technique produce fewer postoperative sequelae after lower third molar surgery than conventional rotary instruments? A systematic review and metanalysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 383–391.
7- Engelke W, Beltrán V, Cantín M, Choi E, Navarro P, Fuentes R. Removal of impacted mandibular third molars using an inward fragmentation technique (IFT) e Method and first results. J Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 2014; 42: 213-219.
8- Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V et al. Comparative evaluation of surgical outcome after removal of impacted mandibular third molars using a Piezotome or a conventional handpiece: a prospective study. British J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 50: 556–561.
9- Arakji H, Shokry M, Aboelsaad N. Comparison of Piezosurgery and Conventional Rotary Instruments for Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: A Randomized Controlled Clinical and Radiographic Trial. Int J Dent. 2016; Article ID 8169356, 7 pages.
10- Lee B, Park Y, Ahn J, Chun J, Park S, Kim M et al. Assessment of the proximity between the mandibular third molar and inferior alveolar canal using preoperative 3D-CT to prevent inferior alveolar nerve damage. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 37:30.
11- Monaco G, Santis GD, Pulpito G, Gatto MRA, Vignudelli E, and Marchetti C. What Are the Types and Frequencies of Complications Associated with Mandibular Third Molar Coronectomy? A Follow-Up Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73: 1246-1253.
12- Tompkins RL. Human Population Variability in Relative Dental Development. Amer J Physic Anthrop. 1996; 99:79-102.
13- Borgonovo A, Bianchi A, Marchetti A, Censi R, Maiorana C. An uncommon clinical feature of IAN injury after third molar removal: A delayed paresthesia case series and literature review. Quintessence Int 2012; 43:353–359.
14- Ecuyer J, Debien J. Surgical deduction. Actual Odontostomatol (Paris) 1984 Dec; 38(148):695-702.
15- Landi L, Manicome PF, Piccinelli S, Raia A, Raia R. A Novel Surgical Approach to Impacted Mandibular Third Molars to Reduce the Risk of Paresthesia: A Case Series. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010 (68):969-974.
16- Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D and the CARE Group. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Journal of Medical Case Reports 2013, 7:223.
17- Samani M, Henien M, Sproat C. Coronectomy of mandibular teeth other than third molars: a case series. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2016 (54):791–795.
18- Leung YY, Cheung LK. Safety of coronectomy versus excision of wisdom teeth: A randomized controlled trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: 821-827.
19- Pogrel MA, Lee JS, Muff DF. Coronectomy: A Technique to Protect the Inferior Alveolar Nerve. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62:1447-1452.
20- O’riordan BC. Coronectomy (intentional partial odontectomy of lower third molars). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 98:274-80.
21- Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z. Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Rotary Techniques for Impacted Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Medicine. 2015; 94:41.
22- Sortino F, Pedullà E, Masoli V. The Piezoelectric and Rotatory Osteotomy Technique in Impacted Third Molar Surgery: Comparison of Postoperative Recovery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66:2444-2448.
23- Tantanapornkul W, Okouchi K, Fujiwara Y, Yamashiro M, Maruoka Y, Ohbayashi N, et al. A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and conventional panoramic radiography in assessing the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103:253-9.
Published
2018-09-30
How to Cite
1.
Uzeda M, Mourão CF, Been R-A, Resende R, Calasans-Maia J de, Calasans-Maia M. The technical difficulties in oral surgery are leading many surgeons to believe that the coronectomy technique is always the best choice for the treatment of impacted third molars in intimate relation with the mandibular nerve. The objective of this study. IABCR [Internet]. 30Sep.2018 [cited 18Oct.2018];4(3):93-6. Available from: https://iabcr.org/index.php/iabcr/article/view/415