Comparison of different dual-wavelength photobiomodulation protocols application in third molar extractions. A split-mouth randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of PBMT in the soft tissue and bone healing after third molar extraction using the dual-wavelength laser directly into the post-extraction alveoli (PBMT-I), or PBMT with a red laser directly into the alveoli and with an infrared laser externally on the patient's face (PBMT-IE). METHODS: Twenty patients underwent extraction of four third molars were involved in this split-mouth double-blind randomized controlled trial. The Post-extraction alveoli were treated with the following protocols: PBMT-IE: Application of a red laser directly into the alveolus, and infrared laser irradiation transcutaneously and PBMT-I: Application of dual-wavelength laser intraorally. Patients were clinically evaluated 3, 7, 14, 30, and 90 days after the surgical procedure. The analyses in this study were divided into qualitative (centered on the patient's report and on the evaluators' analysis), and quantitative analyses (measurement of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the face with the objective of measuring post-surgical edema and radiographic analyses for evaluation of the density and structure of the newly formed bone). RESULTS: A progressive improvement was observed in all parameters evaluated in this study, however, this improvement was time dependent, with no distinct effect observed between the PBMT treatments applied. CONCLUSION: The different dual-wavelength PBMT protocols induced a similar postoperative clinical course in third molar extraction surgeries, with a reduced occurrence of complications and a good healing pattern of hard and soft tissues.

Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000), and 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) in third molar extraction surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent surgeries to extract upper and lower third molars were included in this split-mouth, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The groups in this study were divided according to the anesthetic solution used to provide local anesthesia during extraction of upper and lower third molars: (1) 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000); (2) 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000). The time to the beginning and end of the sensation of analgesia, pain sensation according to the VAS scale, and number of anesthetic tubes necessary for supplementation were analyzed. RESULTS: It was found that the onset time for analgesia was shorter on the side anesthetized with articaine compared to the side anesthetized with lidocaine (122.1 ± 52.90 s vs. 144.5 ± 68.85 s) (p < 0.05). In addition, the number of tubes used for anesthetic supplementation was also reduced on the articaine side compared to the lidocaine side (0.26 ± 0.48 vs. 0.50 ± 0.75) (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the anesthetic solutions in the other evaluated parameters. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the use of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) reduced the time of onset of analgesia and the necessity for anesthetic supplementation in third molar extraction surgeries compared to the use of 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000).

Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis on third molar extraction / Eficácia da profilaxia antibiótica na extração de terceiros molares

Introduction: Third molar extraction surgery is a common dental procedure, often challenging with increased post-operative complications. The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in these cases remains debated. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the postoperative clinical course of third molar extraction surgeries. Material and method: Sixty-three patients were randomly allocated into two groups after extraction of the four third molars. ATB group (N = 33) the patients received 1g of amoxicillin one hour before the surgical procedure, CTR group (N = 30) the patients did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis. Clinical analyses were performed at 3, 7, 14, and 30 days after the surgical procedure. These analyses consisted of assessing oedema, variation in mouth opening, and soft tissue healing. Furthermore, patient-centered analyses were also carried out through the application of the visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess pain, inflammation, bleeding, difficulty opening the mouth, and chewing. Result: No influence of antibiotic prophylaxis was observed on the evolution of clinical parameters of healing, oedema, and mouth opening. Patients did not notice differences regarding their comfort during the postoperative period. Conclusion: The incidence of complications observed in the present study was low and was not related to infectious processes. The use of prophylactic antibiotic therapy has no beneficial effects on the postoperative clinical course in third molar extraction.

Introdução: Exodontia de terceiro molar é um procedimento odontológico comum, frequentemente desafiador, com complicações pós-operatórias aumentadas. A necessidade de profilaxia com antibióticos nesses casos ainda é motivo de debate. Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o efeito da profilaxia com antibióticos no curso clínico pós-operatório das cirurgias de extração do terceiro molar. Material e método: Sessenta e três pacientes foram randomicamente alocados em dois grupos posteriormente a cirurgia de exodontia dos quatro terceiros molares. Grupo ATB (N = 33) utilizou 1g de amoxicilina uma hora antes do procedimento cirúrgico e grupo CTR (N = 30) sem profilaxia antibiótica. Os dentes foram classificados de acordo com Pell & Gregory e Winter. Análises clínicas foram realizadas nos períodos de 3, 7, 14 e 30 dias após o procedimento cirúrgico. As análises consistiram na avaliação do edema, variação de abertura de boca e a cicatrização dos tecidos moles. Também foram executadas análises centradas nos pacientes por meio da aplicação da escala visual analógica (VAS) para avaliação de dor, inflamação, sangramento, dificuldade de abertura bucal e de mastigação. Resultado: Não houve diferenças entre os grupos em relação ao posicionamento dos dentes. Não foi observada influência da profilaxia antibiótica nos parâmetros clínicos de cicatrização, edema e abertura de boca. Os pacientes não notaram diferenças em relação ao seu conforto no pós-operatório. Conclusão: A incidência de complicações foi baixa e não foi relacionada a processos infecciosos. O uso de antibioticoterapia profilática não apresentou efeitos benéficos para o curso clínico pós-operatório em exodontia de terceiros molares.