[Comparison between closure and absence of closure after removal of fully impacted mandibular third molar: a prospective randomized study]. / Comparaison entre fermeture et absence de fermeture du site d'avulsion des troisièmes molaires mandibulaires incluses: étude prospective randomisée.

UNLABELLED: We prospectively and randomly assessed the absence of surgical wound closure on the patient's postoperative outcome when removing impacted mandibular third molars. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients were randomized in 2 groups: the "open group" (O) and the "closed group" (C). We considered the postoperative perimandibular edema, postoperative pain, and limitation of mouth opening at preoperative time, Day2, and Day7. The same physician performed all preoperative (D0) and postoperative measures (D2, D7). RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (27 female and 27 male patients) were included in the study. Ninety-nine cases of impacted mandibular third molars were studied. The statistical analysis revealed a significantly more important postoperative edema in Group C at D2 (P<0.0001) and at D7 (P<0.0001). Postoperative mandibular pain was significantly greater in Group C at D2 (P<0.05) but not at D7 (P>0.05). The decrease of mouth opening was significantly more important in Group C at D2 and at D7 (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Our prospective randomized study data suggests a significant improvement of postoperative outcome when the mucoperiosteal flap was not sutured after removal of impacted third molars.