A prospective split-mouth clinical study: comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments in impacted third molar surgery.

Purpose: Our purpose was to compare the effects of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments on postoperative pain, swelling, trismus, and patients' comfort after mandibular third molar surgery.

Methods: Thirty patients (27 women and 3 men) with bilateral impacted mandibular third molars were included in this split-mouth clinical study. Sixty impacted third molars were divided into a control group (n = 30), in which the osteotomies were performed using a conventional rotary handpiece technique and an experimental group (n = 30), in which the osteotomies were done by piezosurgery technique. Duration of the procedure was recorded. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). All the patients were given a form containing verbal rating scale for evaluating the swelling. Trismus was evaluated using a caliper at maximum mouth opening (cm). In postoperative seventh day, patients were asked to fill a global quality of life (QoL) scale as well.

Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain, trismus, and swelling between control and experimental groups (p > 0.05). However, time of the procedure increased in control group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Piezosurgery is a safe way for performing the osteotomies during third molar surgery. However, regarding the postoperative morbidity, it does not have an advantage over conventional rotary instruments. Piezosurgery took longer to complete the osteotomy than the rotary handpiece technique.