Double blind randomized clinical trial comparing minimally- invasive envelope flap and conventional envelope flap on impacted lower third molar surgery.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The latest trend in surgery is to look for minimally invasive procedures, with fewer complications and a shorter recovery time. This study aims to compare the minimally- invasive envelope flap, with smaller incision and fewer dissection and the conventional envelope flap, with a 20mm incision, on impacted mandibular third molar surgery, focusing on the hypothesis that there were no differences in postoperative outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was designed to compare both incisions, focused on determining the approach with minor postoperative side-effects and minor impact on quality-of-life. A total of 60 patients were enrolled for the study if their presented impacted mandibular third molar and was 18-years-old or more. Both groups were evaluated from time elapsed on the surgery, maximum mouth opening, swelling and quality of life assessment. RESULTS: The flap choice influenced facial swelling (p=0,03), pain on the first three days (p=0,037), interference with oral hygiene (p=0,019) and discomfort on speech (p=0,07). Chewing, swallowing, trismus, pain after seven days, postoperative complications and other quality-of-life arrangements were no different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally- invasive envelope flap could lead to a less painful experience for the patient, with fewer impact on the oral hygiene and speech discomfort.