Summary
The aim of this work was to determine if there is a difference between two flap designs in the extraction of impacted third molars. The present study is a simple blind parallel randomized controlled clinical trial. It was carried out at the Dental Clinic of the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo – Peru, between the months of August and October 2012. The sample consisted of 40 patients randomly divided into 2 groups, each patient signed an informed consent. Group A (control) underwent a conventional bayonet flap design and group B (experimental) underwent a bayonet flap design modified by the authors (P&R flap); for the extraction of impacted third molars. The effect of the flap design (epithelization, absence of dehiscence and / or fenestration, alveolitis or infection) were evaluated at 7 and 14 days after surgery. Statistical significance was 5 %. In the P&R flap, 95 % of the patients presented better epithelialization 7 days after surgery, while, for the conventional bayonet flap, they presented dehiscence and / or fenestration even 14 days after surgery. No postoperative complications were recorded in the patients in whom the P&R flap was used. The P&R flap presents good post-operative results in patients undergoing extraction of the impacted mandibular third molar, compared to the conventional bayonet flap.
KEY WORDS: third molar, extraction, flap, clinical trial.
How to cite this article
PRADA-VIDARTE, O. E.; REÁTEGUI-NAVARRO, M.; IKEDA-ARTACHO, M. C. & ARBILDO-VEGA, H. Comparison of two flap designs in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. a single-blind parallel randomized controlled clinical trial. Int. J. Odontostomat., 15(4):817-822, 2021.
