The removal of deeply impacted lower third molars by means of the bone lid technique with piezoelectric instruments

[su_button url=”http://www.dentalmedjournal.it/files/2017/04/JDM_2017_001_INT@013-017.pdf” target=”blank” style=”flat” background=”#bd1221″ size=”5″]Download PDF[/su_button]

Matteo Chiapasco, Andrea Flora, Laura Serioli, Marco Zaniboni

Unit of Oral Surgery (Head: Prof. Matteo Chiapasco) Dental Clinic – Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Complications, Impacted third molars, Inferior alveolar nerve, Surgical procedure, Piezosurgery.

Introduction

The removal of impacted lower third molars is one of the most frequent procedures in oral surgery because of the high prevalence of impaction (20% in developed countries) (1,2), and due to the high incidence of pathologies related to inferior third molar impaction, such as pericoronitis, cysts, periodontal damage and/or decay of adjacent teeth, neurologic symptoms and, finally, the occurrence of odontogenic tumors such as ameloblastomas (2 – 9).

Surgery can present various degrees of complexity, depending on the position and depth of the impacted tooth, in particular when in direct contact with the inferior alveolar nerve (10). In these cases, it is mandatory to perform a computed tomography of the mandible to evaluate the position and morphology of the tooth and its relationship with the nerve (8, 11-13). Despite the CT data, the surgical removal of deeply impacted lower third molars may be difficult if a standard approach (i.e. crestal approach with removal of bone from the retromolar region) is used (2,10) because of the potentially limited access and visibility of the surgical field, the few angles allowed for management of surgical instruments (1). Due to the above mentioned aspects, this approach may require the removal of a relevant amount of bone, which may cause periodontal damage to the second molar and may leave a residual bone defect. The limited visibility, instead, may cause a lengthening of the operating time and a higher risk of damaging the inferior alveolar nerve, with increased postoperative morbidity (2, 8, 14). Therefore, in case of deep impaction, a different surgical approach, proposed in 1993 by Alling and Alling (15), and consisting of the removal of a “bone lid” from the buccal side to expose the impacted tooth (15,16) may be indicated. This approach can provide better access and visibility of the impacted tooth and the possibility, once the impacted tooth has been removed, to reposition the bone lid in its original position, with practically no loss of bone (15). The aim of this paper is to present the results obtained by the authors using a similar approach on a sample of 6 patients.

Materials and methods

Six patients (Table 1) with symptomatic deeply impacted lower third molars in direct relationship with the inferior alveolar nerve were treated (Unit of Oral Surgery, University of Milan) by means of the “bone lid” technique performed with piezoelectric instruments. Each patient performed a panoramic radiograph and mandibular computed tomography before surgery. One patient was treated under local anesthesia and five under general anesthesia with naso-tracheal intubation. Antibiotic prophylaxis (Amoxicillin + Clavulanate 2 g) were administered to all patients one hour before surgery. Piezoelectric instruments (Mectron Piezosurgery®) were used in all cases for the preparation of the bone lid and the inferior alveolar nerve isolation, while traditional rotary instruments were used only for sectioning the tooth, if indicated.

Surgical procedure

The surgical procedure consisted of the elevation of a mucoperiosteal flap further extended towards the coronoid process and towards the buccal vestibule, similar to the one used in the traditional approach. The vestibular side of the flap was retracted to improve the access and visibility of the surgical field and to protect the soft tissue and important anatomical structures such as the facial artery.

By means of piezoelectric instruments, four osteotomic paths were outlined to isolate a bone block of adequate dimensions in the area of tooth impaction and removed with the aid of a surgical chisel; the bone lid was preserved in sterile saline to be fixed in its position after the removal of the tooth.

The impacted tooth was then sectioned according to surgical needs and removed, maintaining the inferior alveolar nerve under direct control and protection. After tooth removal, the bone lid was repositioned in its original place and fixed with titanium microscrews (in four cases). In one case, in which the nerve was buccal to the impacted tooth and it was associated with an odontogenic tumour the bone lid was not repositioned. In one case, in which the nerve was very buccal to the tooth, the bone lid was not repositioned due to a high risk of nerve compression. Finally, the surgical flaps were sutured.

To reduce post-operative swelling, dexamethasone (8 mg) was administered perioperatively via intravenous injection. Antibiotic therapy with amoxicillin and clavulanate was prescribed to all patients (1 g every 12 hours for 6 days), in association with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The patients followed a liquid and cold diet for 24 hours after surgery. Chlorexidine mouthwashes were prescribed in association to the usual oral hygiene for 10 days.

Results

Post-operative recovery was uneventful in 3 patients with no neurologic sequelae. Three patients reported paresthesia in the innervation area of the inferior alveolar nerve for a period ranging from one to four weeks, but no one of them had permanent neurological sequelae.

Post-operative radiographic controls were performed 6 and 12 months after the surgical procedure: all patients showed a complete healing of the surgical wound and the spontaneous re-ossification of the post-extraction alveolus. A case is presented in Figure 1.

Discussion

Surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars is one of the most frequent oral surgery interventions (2, 17). In case of deep impaction and proximity of the impacted tooth with the inferior alveolar nerve, the risk of nerve damage is not negligible, as demonstrated by several studies, which report neural complications rates ranging from 0,4% to 25% (11,13-15,18-20). In all these publications, a conventional crestal approach was used. The approach proposed in this study, although more invasive and, for this reason, limited to the most complex cases, allows a better control of the surgical field and permits to identify and protect the inferior alveolar nerve in an easier way (15). Therefore, a significant reduction of intraoperative lesions of the inferior alveolar nerve can be obtained and permanent postoperative neurologic sequelae can be avoided (0% in this case series). Furthermore, the use of piezoelectric instruments allows to avoid damages to the surrounding soft tissues and of the inferior alveolar nerve during the bone lid preparation (21-26).

Conclusion

The bone lid technique for the removal of deeply impacted mandibular third molars demonstrated to be a safe and reliable technique, that can significantly simplify the surgical intervention and reduce the risk of neural damages.

Acknowledgments

The Authors thank ACECIL for the ethylene oxide sterilization, and Dr. A. Leyva for the English revision of the manuscript.

References

1. Sencimen M, Varol A, Gulses A, Altug HA. Extraction of a deeply impacted lower third molar by sagittal split osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:e36-8.
2. Chiapasco M, De Cicco L, Marrone G. Side effects and complications associated with third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993;76:412-20.
3. Chrcanovic BR, Custòdio AL. Considerations of mandibular angle fractures during and after surgery for remuval of third molars: a review of the literature. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;14:71-80.
4. Clauser B, Barone R, Briccioli L, Baleani A. Complications in surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Minerva Stomatol 2009;58:359-66.
5. Hazza’a AM, Bataineh AB, Odat AA. Angulation of mandibular third molars as a predictive factor of pericoronitis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10:51-8.
6. Lysell L, Rohlin M. A study of indications used for removal of the mandibular third molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988;17:161-4.
7. Adeyemo WL, James O, Ogunlewe MO, Ladeinde AL, Taiwo OA, Olojede AC. Indications for extraction of third molars: a review of 1763 cases. Niger Postgrad Med J 2008;15:42-6.
8. Nemcovsky CE, Tal H, Pitary S. Effect of non-erupted third molars on roots of approximal teeth. A radiographic, clinical and histologic study. J Oral Pathol Med 1997;26:464-9.
9. Stathopoulos P, Mezitis M, Kappatos C, Titsinides S, Stylogianni E. Cysts and tumors associated with impacted third molars: is prophylactic removal justified? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;69:405-8.
10. Akadiri OA, Obiechina AE. Assessment of difficulty in third molar surgery – a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:771-4.
11. Sivolella S, Boccuzzo G, Gasparini E, De Conti G, Berengo M. Assessing the need for computed tomography for lower-third molar extraction: a survey among 322 dentists. Radiol Med 2012;117(1):112-24.
12. Landi L, Manicone 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;68:969-74.
13. Susarla SM, Dodson TB. Preoperative computed tomography imaging in the management of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:83-8.
14. Ghaemina H, Meijer GJ, Soehardi A, Borstlap WA, Mulder J, Bergè SJ. Position of the impacted third molar in relation to the mandibular canal. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography compared with panoramic radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:964-71.
15. Degerliyurt K, Akar V, Denizci S, Yucel E. Bone lid tecnique with piezosurgery to preserve inferior alveolar nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:1-5.
16. Alling R, Alling CC III. Removal of impacted teeth and lesion from unusual locations. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 1993;5:111-9.
17. Liedholm R, Knutsson K, Lysell L, Rohlin M. Mandibular third molars: oral surgeons’ assessment of the indications for removal. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;37:440-3.
18. Blondeau F, Nach GD. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: postoperative complications and their risk. JCDA 2007;73:325.
19. Contar CM, de Oliveira P, Kanegusuku K, Berticelli R, Azevedo-Alanis LR, Machado MA. Complications in third molar removal: a retrospective study of 588 patients. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010 1;15(1):e74-8.
20. Zuniga RJ. Management of third molar-related nerve injuries: observe or treat? Alpha Omegan 2009;102:79-84.
21. Kotrikova B, Wirtz R, Krempien R, Blank J, Eggers G, Samiotis A, Muhling J. Piezosurgery – a new safe technique in cranial osteoplasty? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;35:461-5
22. Vercellotti T. Piezoelectric surgery in implantology:a case report – a new piezoelectric ridge expansion technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:358-65.
23. Vercellotti T. Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva Stomatol 2004;53:207-14.
24. Stubinger S, Kuttenberger J, Filippi A, Sader R, Zeilhofer HF. Intraoral piezosurgery: preliminary results of a new technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1283-7.
25. Schlee M, Steigmann M, Bratu E, Grag AK. Piezosurgery: basics and possibilities. Implant Dent 2006;15:334-40.
26. Horton JE, Tarpley TM Jr, Jacoway JR. Clinical applications of ultrasonic instrumentation in the surgical removal of bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981;51:236-242.