Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05946317

Removal of Impacted Molars With Lingual Split Technique

This research assesses removal of mandibular third molars by the lingual split technique with using Walter's lingual retractor for retracting lingual flap, and evaluates the lingual nerve injury that may result after applying this technique. The research sample included 20 patients and their age under 25 years where the grain is clear. The lingual nerve is assessed by sensory neurological tests on a graphic map that divides the tongue into sextants.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Lingual Nerve Injuries Cranial Nerve Diseases Cranial Nerve Injuries Craniocerebral Trauma Facial Nerve Diseases Facial Neuralgia Mouth Diseases Nervous System Diseases Stomatognathic Diseases Trauma, Nervous System Trigeminal Nerve Diseases Trigeminal Nerve Injuries Wounds and Injuries

Age range

19 year–24 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Alaa Alaji

Latakia, Syria

About this study

Although the scope of oral and maxillofacial surgery has expanded in many directions recently, the common or recurrent practice remains dentoalveolar surgery including impaction surgery. The main indication to extract is whether the third molar has involved in a disease process.

Permanent injury of lingual and chorda tympani nerve (influenced by taste sensations) following removal mandibular third molar remains a clinical problem in oral and maxillofacial surgery. To reduce the risk of lingual nerve injury, the current protocols in North America accentuate raising a buccal flap and following a buccal approach during removal impacted mandibular third molar. However, there was no uniform success as a clinical reality showed. Many patients are still being referred to specialist centers for the management of lingual nerve injury. In most cases, the surgeon was not discerned of any incident that could cause the neurological injury. The alternative technique is Lingual split technique.

Lingual split technique for removal impacted mandibular third molars introduced by Kelsey Fry and described by Ward in 1956 by removing a thin piece of disto-lingual bone and removing the tooth lingually. This technique is initially designed to remove distal and lingually inclined impacted mandibular third molar. This technique has not received much appreciation because of potential associated morbidity. Complications with this technique are potential damage to the lingual nerve, increasing hemorrhage from the lingual cohesive soft tissue, infection expansion to the sublingual or sublingual spaces and edema close to the airway. Several modifications have been made on the lingual split technique which they have reduced trauma and prevent complications. The advantages of this technique are easy, safety, less time-consuming and minimal tissue trauma and complications with good outcomes. Also, it allows obtaining the impacted third molar in one piece, and may be used as a donor tooth for non-restorable molar replacement. It has the advantage of reducing the volume of residual thrombosis when using sauzerization means. Few studies look specifically at the lingual split technique, which has been criticized for causing a high rate of lingual nerve injury and excluded for centuries.

The independent basis in lingual spilt technique is that the lingual plate is much thinner than the buccal, especially in cases where the tooth is fully bone impacting. It is suitable for use in young patients only with a flexible bone where the grain is clear.6 The direction of the grain and the presence of the lingual prominence of the alveolar process allow the desired part of the bone plate to easily detach by chiseling and this makes the technique more rapid.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients who have impacted mandibular third molar indicated for removal.
  • Patients are healthy and have no systemic diseases (ASA1 ASA2).
  • Patient's age is less than 25 years where the bone grain is still present and the use of the chisel and hammer is permitted.
  • Patient's consent to surgical work and inclusion in the research.

Exclusion criteria

  • A deep impacted mandibular third molar which is close proximately to the neuro-vascular package, deep horizontal impaction, extreme disto-angular impaction.
  • Patient's age is over 25 years.
  • The lingual plate is thick.

Treatment and study plan

Lingual nerve function assessed after removal of mandibular third molar with lingual split technique

Procedure

The lingual split technique is based on using chisel and hammer in bone removing. After the buccal and lingual flaps are raised and retracted. Two buccal bone cutting with horizontal cutting up between them are performed, The disto-lingual bone fragment is fractured inward by placing the cutting edge of the chisel at 45 degrees with the surface of the bone and directed towards the lower second premolar of the opposite side. By maintaining the cutting edge of the chisel parallel to the external oblique ridge, a few light taps with the mallet will separate the lingual plate from the rest of the alveolar bone. And it released from soft tissues, buccally force is applied to roll the whole tooth lingually. The neurological function of the lingual nerve was assessed after the demise of local anesthesia, then the location of the disorder and taste function and healing time are determined by sensory neurological tests on a graphic map that divides the tongue into sextants.

Primary outcomes

  1. Lingual nerve injury location

    Time frame: 6 hours after the surgical procedure of removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

    The location of the disorder on the tongue is determined on a graphic map that divides the tongue into six sextants in each side: middle apical, lateral apical, middle, lateral, middle posterior and lateral posterior.

  2. Nerve discrepancy

    Time frame: 6 hours after the surgical procedure of removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

    0 : No sensational impairment

    • : Mild loss of sensation
    • : Moderate loss of sensation
    • : Severe loss of sensation

  3. Taste function

    Time frame: 6 hours after the surgical procedure of removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

    Taste function is assessed by Taste sensation tests of sweetness, saltiness, acidity and bitterness.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Healing time

    Time frame: Two weeks after the surgical procedure.

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), it is a useful tool for monitoring progression of neurosensory recovery. This is a 10 cm five-degree scale, with a degree marked every 2.5 cm.

    • : complete absence of sensation.
    • : Almost no sensation.
    • : Reduced sensation.
    • : Almost normal sensation.
    • : Fully normal sensation.

  2. Healing time

    Time frame: Four weeks after the surgical procedure.

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), it is a useful tool for monitoring progression of neurosensory recovery. This is a 10 cm five-degree scale, with a degree marked every 2.5 cm.

    • : complete absence of sensation.
    • : Almost no sensation.
    • : Reduced sensation.
    • : Almost normal sensation.
    • : Fully normal sensation.

  3. Healing time

    Time frame: Six weeks after the surgical procedure.

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), it is a useful tool for monitoring progression of neurosensory recovery. This is a 10 cm five-degree scale, with a degree marked every 2.5 cm.

    • : complete absence of sensation.
    • : Almost no sensation.
    • : Reduced sensation.
    • : Almost normal sensation.
    • : Fully normal sensation.

  4. Healing time

    Time frame: Two months after the surgical procedure.

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), it is a useful tool for monitoring progression of neurosensory recovery. This is a 10 cm five-degree scale, with a degree marked every 2.5 cm.

    • : complete absence of sensation.
    • : Almost no sensation.
    • : Reduced sensation.
    • : Almost normal sensation.
    • : Fully normal sensation.

  5. Healing time

    Time frame: Four months after the surgical procedure.

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), it is a useful tool for monitoring progression of neurosensory recovery. This is a 10 cm five-degree scale, with a degree marked every 2.5 cm.

    • : complete absence of sensation.
    • : Almost no sensation.
    • : Reduced sensation.
    • : Almost normal sensation.
    • : Fully normal sensation.

  6. Healing time

    Time frame: Six months after the surgical procedure.

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), it is a useful tool for monitoring progression of neurosensory recovery. This is a 10 cm five-degree scale, with a degree marked every 2.5 cm.

    • : complete absence of sensation.
    • : Almost no sensation.
    • : Reduced sensation.
    • : Almost normal sensation.
    • : Fully normal sensation.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Latakia University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Evaluation of Sir William Kelsey Fry Technique in Lingual Surgical Removal of Impacted Lower Third Molar With Retraction Lingual Nerve

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2022
Study completion
2022
First posted
Jul 14, 2023
Registry last updated
Jul 18, 2023

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.