COMPARISON OF DIODE LASER VERSUS CONVENTIONAL SCALPEL INCISION IN REMOVAL OF IMPACTED LOWER THIRD MOLAR IN DIABETIC PATIENTS (A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL) | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Articles in Press, Corrected Proof, Available Online from 05 May 2024 PDF (622.1 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2023.215437.1385 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Hussein Bassem Zeidan  1; Nevein Shawkey Mohamed2; Dina Mohamed Nader 3
| ||||
| 1Oral and Maxillofacial surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||||
| 2Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| 3Oral and Maxillofacial surgery department, Faculty of dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria ,Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: One of the most common minor surgeries in dental practices is the extraction of the third molars; a procedure that requires optimum physical and radiological assessment to decrease the complications that may arise during the procedure. Certain surgical modalities have been proposed to decrease the invasiveness of the procedure, one is the diode laser therapeutic use. Objectives: To clinically compare the wound healing rate and the clinical outcome that occurs following the extraction of the lower third molar teeth removed by the conventional gold standard scalpel versus the diode laser incision in diabetic patients. Materials and Methods: The study was a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Twenty-three diabetic patients who needed bilateral extraction of impacted mandibular third molar were recruited and randomized. One side (study group) had the incision undergone by the diode laser, while the contralateral side (control group) had the conventional scalpel incision to expose the tooth. Results: The clinical outcome showed statistical differences between both groups in the early postoperative period and the study group showed better results in pain, edema, and trismus, but the control group showed better results in wound healing in the early postoperative period, however, no longer significance was noted between both groups after one month follow-up. Conclusion: Diode laser incision was effective in reducing postoperative pain, edema, and trismus. The only disadvantage was delayed wound healing in the first week. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Conventional scalpel; Diode laser; Diabetes; Impaction | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 29 PDF Download: 15 |
||||
