Abstract
BACKGROUND-OBJECTIVE(S): This randomized, split-mouth study aimed to compare postoperative complications following the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars using piezosurgery versus conventional rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients, aged 18-35 years, with bilaterally and symmetrically impacted lower third molars, were randomly assigned to undergo extraction using piezosurgery on one side and conventional rotary instruments on the other. RESULTS: The piezosurgery method required a longer operation time. However, it resulted in quicker resolution of postoperative swelling by the 7th day compared to the conventional method, where swelling persisted longer. Mandibular angle-tragus measurements were significantly higher with the conventional method on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days. Although mouth opening decreased significantly after piezosurgery, it returned to preoperative levels by the 7th day, outperforming the conventional method. Postoperative pain was notably higher with the conventional method during the first four days but showed no significant difference from the 5th day onward. Alveolar bone healing was significantly better with piezosurgery at the 3rd and 6th months. Temporary paresthesia occurred in one patient from the conventional group, resolving within four weeks. Neither method resulted in alveolar osteitis. CONCLUSION(S): Within the study's limitations, piezosurgery demonstrated a reduction in postoperative discomfort, suggesting its advantage in enhancing patient recovery following lower third molar extractions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Piezosurgery, when used appropriately, can reduce postoperative complications compared to conventional methods. Clinicians should be aware of its indications, benefits, and potential challenges. Trial registration This study was registered as a clinical trial to the ClinicalTrials.gov, and the registration ID is NCT06262841 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06262841 ).