YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8

Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; xxx: xxx–xxx

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007, available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com

Clinical Paper
Oral Surgery

Comparison of a new flap Ü.Yolcu1, A. H. Acar2

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Inönü University,
Malatya, Turkey; 2Department of Oral and

design with the routinely used Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry,

Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey

triangular flap design in third

molar surgery
Ü. Yolcu, A.H. Acar: Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used
triangular flap design in third molar surgery. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; xxx:
xxx–xxx. # 2015 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.
Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract. The aim of this study is to introduce a new flap design in the surgical
removal of impacted mandibular third molars – a lingually based triangular flap –
and to compare this flap design with the routinely used triangular flap. This
randomized, prospective, split-mouth study involved 22 patients with impacted
bilateral mandibular third molars that were symmetrically positioned, mesially
angulated, and retained in bone. The impacted teeth were removed in two sessions,
using two different flap designs: the new alternative flap and the traditional
triangular flap. Postoperative complications (pain, swelling, trismus, alveolar
osteitis, and wound dehiscence) were recorded on days 2, 7, 14, and 21. The data
obtained were analysed using the x2 test, the Mann–Whitney U-test, and Pearson’s
correlation. In terms of the severity of postoperative facial swelling and trismus,
there were no statistically significant differences between the flap designs
(P > 0.05). The alternative flap exhibited higher pain scores at 12 h post-surgery
(P < 0.05). In addition, the alternative flap group exhibited less wound dehiscence, Key words: impacted third molar; triangular
although this was not statistically significant. Moreover, all wound dehiscence in flap; primary wound healing.
this group occurred on sound bone. In conclusion, these results show that this new
flap design is preferable to the routinely used flap for impacted third molar surgery. Accepted for publication 14 July 2015

The mandibular third molars, or wisdom
teeth, are present in 90% of the population,
with 33% exhibiting at least one impacted
third molar. Owing to the high incidence
rate of impacted third molars, their surgical
excision is probably the most frequently
performed operation in oral and maxillofa-
cial surgery.1–6 Morbidities associated with
the surgical removal of an impacted third
molar, such as pain, swelling, trismus, al-
veolar osteitis (dry socket), nerve damage,
and compromised periodontal status of the
adjacent second molar, still pose a major
problem for surgeons and patients. Postop-
erative morbidity has important medical,
legal, and economic implications.7
Consequently, many surgical approaches
have been tried to minimize these compli-
cations, such as the use of surgical drains,
different wound closure techniques, and
various flap designs.2,6,8–11
In oral surgical procedures, it is desir-
able to place the mucoperiosteal incision
on sound bone. Many flap designs used in

0901-5027/000001+08 # 2015 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8

2 Yolcu and Acar

impacted third molar surgery do not fol-

low this rule, as they involve incisions that
are placed on the extraction socket, result-
ing in a high incidence of mucosal dehis-
cence, followed by secondary wound
healing. In secondary healing, the buccal
flap is often tucked into the socket region
and organization of the coagulum in the
socket region may be disrupted. In addi-
tion, the surgical area is left unprotected
against oral pathogens and food residue.
This condition leads to delayed wound
healing and increases the risk of develop-
ing alveolar osteitis. Hence, existing
wound dehiscence at the distofacial edge
of the second molar probably extends the
postsurgical treatment period. This may
lead to an elevated level and duration of
postoperative pain and discomfort. Fur-
thermore, potential periodontal complica-
tions distal to the preceding second molar
may also occur.2,8–10,12 Numerous inves-
tigators advocate using primary wound
closure after mandibular third molar sur-
gery to obtain quicker mucosal healing
and superior amounts of bone regenera-
tion.8,13,14
Various incision and flap techniques, Fig. 1. Incision for the buccally based triangular flap.
each with variations, have been performed
for third molar surgery. The envelope flap
and triangular flap are the most commonly approved by the relevant ethics commit- the distobuccal corner of the second molar
use and preferred flap designs in impacted tee. crown. The incision was continuous, with
third molar surgery.9,11 The aim of this All surgical procedures were carried out a relieving vertical incision, oblique into
study was to compare a new flap design by the same surgeon (UY), who has more the mandibular vestibular fornix, aligned
with the routinely used triangular flap than 10 years of experience as a specialist with the mesiobuccal cusp of the second
design in the surgical removal of impacted in oral and maxillofacial surgery. For each molar (Fig. 1).
mandibular third molars. patient, the impacted teeth were removed For technique B (n = 22 teeth), a lin-
in two sessions using the two different flap gually based triangular flap was used to
designs. The time interval between the two remove the impacted mandibular third
sessions was at least 4 weeks. The flap molar on the contralateral side of the
Materials and methods
design and operated side of the mouth patient. An incision was made adjacent
This randomized, prospective, split-mouth were assigned randomly for each patient to the distal surface of the mandibular
study was performed at the Department of using envelopes prepared in advance. The second molar, and extended along the
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of side of the first operation was defined by sulcus to the distobuccal corner of the
Dentistry, Inönü University. It involved 22 the patient. mandibular second molar. An oblique ves-
patients with impacted bilateral mandibu- Before starting the procedure, the oral tibular incision was made and extended
lar third molars that were symmetrically cavity was rinsed thoroughly with diluted into the vestibular fornix of the mandible,
positioned, mesially angulated, and povidone iodine solution for 30 s. Three aligned with the mesiobuccal cusp of the
retained in bone. The exclusion criteria millilitres of articaine HCl 4% with second molar. It was continued postero-
were the following: history of systemic 1:200,000 epinephrine (Ultracaine D-S superiorly towards the anterior border of
disease, use of medications, poor oral Ampul; Sanofi Aventis, Istanbul, Turkey) mandibular ramus (Figs 2 and 3).
hygiene and compromised dental and peri- was used as the local anaesthetic agent for A mucoperiosteal flap was raised
odontal status, smoking habit, allergy or inferior alveolar and lingual nerve block (Fig. 4). Bone was removed with a round
contraindications to the drugs or anaes- (2 ml), along with vestibular infiltration bur under copious irrigation with 0.9%
thetics used in the study, pregnancy or (1 ml). sterile saline, following which the tooth
lactation, and a noticeable local inflamma- Flaps were made using two techniques. was extracted. When necessary, the tooth
tion or pathology in the oral cavity that For technique A (n = 22 teeth), the im- was sectioned with a fissure bur. Primary
would influence the surgical procedure or pacted teeth were removed using a buc- wound closure was accomplished using
postoperative wound healing. cally based triangular flap, as first 4–0 silk sutures. The buccally based trian-
Before the procedure, each participant described by Szymd.15 An incision was gular flap was closed with three single
was informed about the surgical and post- made from the anterior border of the man- sutures distal to the second molar and
operative study protocol. Signed consent dibular ramus to the distal surface of the three single sutures in the perpendicular
indicating their agreement to participate in distobuccal cusp of the mandibular second incision line (Fig. 5). For the lingually
the study was obtained. The study was molar. It was extended along the sulcus to based triangular flap, the same suturing

Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8
Fig. 2. Incision for the lingually based triangular flap.
Fig. 3. Intraoperative image of the lingually based triangular flap.
technique was used vertically, and the
posterior portion of the incision was su-
tured with four single sutures (Figs 6 and
7). The duration of each procedure from
the start of the incision to the time of last
suture placement was noted. Further, the
need or lack thereof for tooth sectioning
was recorded.
Following surgery, the patients were
prescribed paracetamol (Minoset,
500 mg 3  1; Bayer Turk, Istanbul,
Turkey) and chlorhexidine gluconate/ben-
zydamine hydrochloride mouth wash
(Kloroben, 3  1; Drogsan, Ankara,
Turkey) for 3 days and 5 days, respective-
ly. Antibiotics were not prescribed before
or after the procedure. Sutures were re-
moved on day 7 postoperative.
Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
Alternative flap design in third molar surgery
Patients were recalled on days 2, 7, 14,
and 21 postoperative, and were evaluated
for the parameters of pain, facial swelling,
maximum mouth opening, wound dehis-
cence, and other variables. During each
postoperative visit, data were collected
and recorded by the same surgeon
(AHA) who was blinded to the surgical
technique used.
Trismus was assessed by measuring
the maximum inter-incisal opening
(in millimetres) – the distance between
the incisal margin of the upper and
lower central incisors – using a standard
ruler. This measurement was repeated
twice.
The level of postoperative pain was
evaluated using a 10-cm visual analogue
3
scale (VAS), with zero representing no
pain and 10 representing excruciating
pain. Patients were asked to mark the
position of their pain along the scale at
6 h and 12 h after the operation and in the
morning for 7 days post-surgery. The VAS
was converted to a numerical value by
millimetre measurement.
For the objective evaluation of swell-
ing, five distances were measured: (a) the
distance from the mandibular angle to the
lateral corner of the mouth; (b) the dis-
tance from the mandibular angle to the
nasal alar curvature, (c) the distance from
the mandibular angle to the lateral can-
thus of the eye, (d) the distance from the
tragus to the soft tissue pogonion, and (e)
the distance from the tragus to the lateral
corner of the mouth. Measurements
were performed twice with a thread,
transferred to a ruler, and recorded.
The facial measurement was calculated
as: (a + b + c + d + e)/5. The percentage
of facial swelling (%) was calculated
as: [(postoperative measurement–
preoperative measurement)/preoperative
measurement]  100.
The presence of alveolar osteitis (dry
socket) was determined clinically using
Blum’s criteria.16 On days 7, 14, and 21
postoperative, wound healing was
assessed and recorded as primary or sec-
ondary, depending on the absence or pres-
ence of dehiscence, respectively. Every
opening along the incision was recorded
as a wound dehiscence. Dental tweezers
were used to identify dehiscence.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Sta-
tistics version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk,
NY, USA). Data for individual parameters
were initially tested for normal distribu-
tion using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Differ-
ences in individual parameters among the
groups were tested using an independent
sample t-test for normally distributed vari-
ables (trismus and operation time) and the
Mann–Whitney U-test for non-normally
distributed variables (swelling and pain).
Additionally, Pearson’s correlation test
was used to assess if a statistically signifi-
cant relationship existed between two
categorical variables. Differences were
considered significant if the P-value was
less than 0.05.
Results
A total of 22 patients (16 women and
six men), aged between 19 and 28 years
(mean  standard deviation, 22.23  2.49
years), participated in this study.
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8
4 Yolcu and Acar
Fig. 4. Raising of the mucoperiosteal flap in the lingually based triangular flap technique.
Fig. 5. Closure of the buccally based triangular flap.
The average time taken to perform the
surgery was 18.23  6.17 min for the buc-
cally based triangular flap group and
20.41  3.97 min for the lingually based
triangular flap group (P = 0.17).
Bone was removed in all cases; teeth
were sectioned in 13 cases (59.1%) in the
buccally based triangular flap group and in
11 cases (50%) in the lingually based
triangular flap group (P = 0.55).
Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
When compared to the buccally based
triangular flap group, the lingually based
triangular flap group exhibited the follow-
ing: (1) a higher mean VAS score at 12 h
post-surgery, which was statistically sig-
nificant (P = 0.04); (2) higher pain scores
at 6 h and on each of the first 7 days post-
surgery, although this was not statistically
significant (P > 0.05) (Table 1); and (3)
inferior maximal inter-incisal mouth
opening from day 2 to day 21 postopera-
tive, although the difference was not sta-
tistically significant (P > 0.05) (Table 2).
The mean percentage of postoperative
facial swelling did not differ significantly
between the two groups (P > 0.05)
(Table 3).
The percentage occurrence of dehis-
cence at the buccally based triangular flap
sites was 68% on day 7, 36% on day 14,
and 9% on day 21 postoperative; at the
lingually based triangular flap sites, these
percentages were 46%, 23%, and 5%,
respectively. Differences in the percent-
age occurrence of dehiscence between the
two groups were not statistically signifi-
cant (Table 4). It was found that, while the
incision dehisced near the distal aspect of
the second molar at the buccally based
triangular flap sites, the oblique vestibular
incision dehisced in the proximity of the
distobuccal corner of the second molar at
all lingually based triangular flap sites.
While three cases of alveolar osteitis
were identified in the buccally based tri-
angular flap group, there was only one
case of alveolar osteitis in the lingually
based triangular flap group (P > 0.05). In
the lingually based triangular flap group,
one patient developed an infection within
the week of evaluation and was treated
with antimicrobials and anti-inflammatory
therapy.
The relationships between the postop-
erative morbidities (pain, swelling, tris-
mus, type of wound healing, and
presence of alveolar osteitis) and several
clinical variables (operation time, sex,
tooth sectioning) were also assessed and
found to be statistically insignificant with
respect to both flap groups (P > 0.05).
None of the patients reported any sen-
sory disturbances of the lingual or inferior
alveolar nerve.
Discussion
There have been many studies on the
morbidities following surgical removal
of impacted mandibular third molars.
Postoperative complications of impacted
third molar surgery such as pain, swell-
ing, trismus, and alveolar osteitis, ad-
versely affect the patient’s quality of
life. As a consequence, different surgical
strategies such as various flap designs,
different closure techniques, the use of
drugs and ice packs, surgical drains, and
laser applications have been used to pre-
vent or minimize these postoperative
complications.8,11,17–19
In this study, the postoperative out-
comes of an alternative flap design,
the lingually based triangular flap, were
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8
Fig. 6. Closure of the lingually based triangular flap.
Fig. 7. Intraoperative image of closure of the lingually based triangular flap.
compared to those following the use of the
traditional buccally based triangular flap.
In this study, to standardize the surgical
protocol and to decrease the effects of
variables on the final outcomes, all surger-
ies were performed by a single surgeon
Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
Alternative flap design in third molar surgery
under similar clinical conditions. Further-
more, patients were selected from a simi-
lar age group, with each patient serving as
their own control, and the teeth were
symmetrically angulated. Thus, the flap
design was the sole independent factor
5
associated with the severity of postopera-
tive morbidities; it was attempted to elim-
inate the patient compliance factor, and all
other possible factors were kept as homo-
geneous as possible.
With the exception of a few flap
designs, it appears that the incisions of
many conventional flap designs are not
placed on sound bone. With the comma-
shaped flap described by Nageshwar,2 the
tongue-shaped flap designed by Ber-
wick,20 and the lingually based triangular
flap used in the present study, the incisions
are not placed on the bony defect formed
from the extraction of the impacted molar.
Nageshwar compared the conventional
modified envelope flap with comma-
shaped flap designs and found that pain
scores were significantly lower when the
comma-shaped flap design technique was
used.2 Also, it was found that the inci-
dence of swelling and trismus was lower in
the comma-shaped flap group, but this was
not statistically significant. Kumar et al.6
evaluated the effect of a comma-shaped
flap design and standard flap design
(Ward’s incision) on pain, swelling, and
trismus after impacted third molar sur-
gery. They observed that the comma-
shaped flap was associated with lesser
facial swelling, lower pain scores, and a
lower incidence of trismus. However, in
the present study it was found that there
was a significant difference in postopera-
tive pain, with higher pain scores in the
lingually based triangular flap group at
12 h post-surgery, and there were no sta-
tistically significant differences in the oth-
er variables between the study groups.
Wound closure following third molar
surgery may be primary or secondary in
nature.21 Different methods of achieving
secondary closure have been described in
the literature, which include drain place-
ment, mucosal excision, single suture
placement, and the sutureless technique.22
Primary or secondary wound closure tech-
niques may affect postoperative morbidi-
ty.21,22 With secondary closure, the
extraction socket remains vulnerable to
the ambient environment and may become
contaminated by oral pathogens and food
residue; this condition may lead to the
development of potential alveolar osteitis
or infection.16,22 Wound healing is
delayed and postoperative wound care is
prolonged.14 However, secondary wound
closure facilitates the drainage of inflam-
matory exudates and fluids after surgery
and aids in decreasing postoperative pain
and swelling.19,23 In primary closure,
which has been linked to the intensity of
pain and swelling postoperatively, the
extraction socket is covered and sealed
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8

6 Yolcu and Acar

Table 1. Pain levels assessed by VAS (in millimetres).

Time of assessment Buccally based triangular Lingually based triangular
post-surgery flap (mean  SD) flap (mean  SD) P-valuea
6h 53.82  2.82 65.68  2.24 0.16
12 h 52.59  2.79 69.95  2.31 0.04*
1 day 35.04  24.27 47.32  29.80 0.19
2 days 31.36  29.96 39.41  29.67 0.30
3 days 21.36  24.11 31.68  23.16 0.11
4 days 12.09  15.51 20.86  21.23 0.11
5 days 14.91  21.23 15.14  17.07 0.61
6 days 6.50  12.01 12.68  17.21 0.24
7 days 4.73  10.08 8.64  15.44 0.25
VAS, visual analogue scale; SD, standard deviation.
a
P-value, Mann–Whitney U-test.
*
P < 0.05.

Table 2. Maximum inter-incisal opening (in millimetres).

Buccally based triangular Lingually based triangular
Time of assessment post-surgery flap (mean  SD) flap (mean  SD) P-valuea
Preoperative 47.86  5.44 48.50  4.98 0.69
2 days 28.05  7.84 25.23  8.36 0.26
7 days 37.41  8.25 34.23  8.82 0.22
14 days 44.59  6.32 41.82  8.30 0.22
21 days 47.50  5.54 45.95  5.85 0.37
SD, standard deviation.
a
P-value, independent sample t-test.

Table 3. Percentage facial swelling.

Time of assessment post-surgery Buccally based triangular flap (mean  SD) Lingually based triangular flap (mean  SD) P-valuea
2 days 4.88  1.80 5.48  2.10 0.34
7 days 2.12  1.27 2.12  1.62 0.70
14 days 0.59  0.57 0.67  0.85 0.86
21 days 0.11  0.24 0.17  0.36 0.85
SD, standard deviation.
a
P-value, Mann–Whitney U-test.

Table 4. Outcomes of wound healing according to the technique used.

Buccally based triangular flap Lingually based triangular flap
Time of assessment post-surgery n (%) n (%) P-valuea
7 days
Primary 7 (31.8) 12 (54.5) 0.12
Secondary 15 (68.2) 10 (45.5)
14 days
Primary 14 (63.6) 17 (77.3) 0.32
Secondary 8 (36.4) 5 (22.7)
21 days
Primary 20 (90.9) 21 (95.5) 0.55
Secondary 2 (9.1) 1 (4.5)
n, number.
a
P-value, Pearson x2 test.

hermetically with a mucosal flap.18 Early
primary closure is desired in certain cases,
particularly in those taking bisphospho-
nates, undergoing radiotherapy, who are
immunosuppressed, etc. Delayed primary
closure may result in alveolar osteitis,
postoperative infection, and osteomyelitis
in these cases.
Complete closure, or closed healing,
potentially enhances healing by primary
intention.8,10 Irrespective of the applica-
tion of primary wound closure techniques,
wound dehiscence may occur distal to the
neighbouring second molar during the first
phase of wound healing. This region may
undergo secondary healing without any
additional discomfort or consequences.
However, such dehiscence may lead
to the development of alveolar osteitis,
compromise the periodontal status of the
adjacent tooth, and potentially prolong the
postoperative treatment period.1,4,10
Very few studies in the literature have
assessed wound dehiscence during the
early wound healing period after impact-
ed third molar surgery. Sandhu et al.
compared the effects of envelope and
bayonet flap designs on postoperative
wound dehiscence.12 They found that
wound dehiscence occurred significantly

Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8
more frequently in the envelope flap
group (35%) when compared to the bay-
onet flap group (5%). Jakse et al.10 found
that wound dehiscence developed in 57%
of cases in which the envelope flap was
used, but in only 10% of cases in which
the modified triangular flap was used.
Suarez-Cunqueiro et al.24 also stated that
wound dehiscence occurred in 14.8% of
para-marginal flap cases, whereas none
occurred with the use of a marginal flap.
As understood from these studies, the
flap design in third molar surgery con-
siderably influences primary wound heal-
ing. In the current study, it was
determined that there was no significant
difference in wound dehiscence and al-
veolar osteitis between the lingually
based triangular flap design and the buc-
cally based triangular flap design. Of
note, in none of the cases of wound
dehiscence in the lingually based trian-
gular flap group was the dehiscence lo-
cated on the tooth extraction sockets; all
dehiscence was located on sound bone.
Damage to the lingual nerve after third
molar extraction is a rare complication.
However, the incidence of lingual nerve
damage shows variability across clinical
studies.25,26 There are some risk factors,
such as the depth and position of the
impacted tooth, anatomical variations,
and flap design.25–27 In the present study,
lingual nerve damage did not occur in any
of the patients, although the number of
cases was not sufficient to evaluate this
parameter. However it was observed that
the lingually based triangular flap was
more secure in the prevention of lingual
nerve damage, because the incision, dis-
section, and suturing were performed
away from the lingual side.
Various risk factors have been linked to
the intensity and frequency of postopera-
tive complications,5–7,9 such as the age and
sex of the patient, medications consumed,
smoking habits, time of the day when sur-
gery is performed, degree of difficulty in
performing the surgery, duration of the
surgery, experience of the operator, magni-
tude of the ostectomy, and poor oral hy-
giene. No relationship between the
following variables and postoperative com-
plications (pain, swelling, trismus, type of
wound healing, and alveolar osteitis) was
found in the present study: sex, duration of
the surgery, and tooth sectioning.
The aim of this study was to introduce a
new flap technique and to compare this
technique to that used routinely in clinical
practice – the triangular flap technique.
Better healing was observed with the lin-
gually based triangular flap, as the suture
line does not lie over the socket area.
Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
Alternative flap design in third molar surgery
There was less wound dehiscence and
potential for infection with this alternative
flap, but postoperatively there was initially
greater pain. Further larger studies are
required to determine the advantages
and disadvantages of this new flap tech-
nique in third molar surgery, including
different types of impaction.
In conclusion, it was determined that
there was no significant difference be-
tween the lingually based triangular flap
and the traditional buccally based triangu-
lar flap regarding postoperative complica-
tions after impacted third molar surgery,
and the new incision design is preferable
for impacted third molar surgery.
Funding
No source of funding for this study.
Competing interests
We declare that we have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the Ethics
Committee of Malatya Clinical Investiga-
tions (protocol number 2012/177).
Patient consent
Not required.
References
1. Kirtiloğlu T, Bulut E, Sümer M, Cengiz I.
Comparison of 2 flap designs in the peri-
odontal healing of second molars after fully
impacted mandibular third molar extrac-
tions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:
2206–10.
2. Nageshwar. Comma incision for impacted
mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2002;60:1506–9.
3. Silva JL, Jardim EC, dos Santos PL, Pereira
FP, Garcia Junior IR, Poi WR. Comparative
analysis of 2-flap designs for extraction of
mandibular third molar. J Craniofac Surg
2011;22:1003–7.
4. Karaca I, Simşek S, Uğar D, Bozkaya S.
Review of flap design influence on the health
of the periodontium after mandibular third
molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:18–23.
5. Freudlsperger C, Deiss T, Bodem J, Engel M,
Hoffmann J. Influence of lower third molar
anatomic position on postoperative inflam-
matory complications. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2012;70:1280–5.
6. Kumar BS, Sarumathi T, Veerabahu M,
Raman U. To compare standard incision
and comma shaped incision and its influence
7
on post-operative complications in surgical
removal of impacted third molars. J Clin
Diagn Res 2013;7:1514–8.
7. Baqain ZH, Al-Shafii A, Hamdan AA,
Sawair FA. Flap design and mandibular third
molar surgery: a split mouth randomized
clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2012;41:1020–4.
8. Goldsmith SM, De Silva RK, Tong DC, Love
RM. Influence of a pedicle flap design on
acute postoperative sequelae after lower
third molar removal. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2012;41:371–5.
9. Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Isik K, Candirli C.
Effect of 2 flap designs on postoperative pain
and swelling after impacted third molar sur-
gery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radiol 2013;116:244–6.
10. Jakse N, Bankaoglu V, Wimmer G, Eskici A,
Pertl C. Primary wound healing after lower
third molar surgery: evaluation of 2 different
flap designs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:7–12.
11. Kirk DG, Liston PN, Tong DC, Love RM.
Influence of two different flap designs on
incidence of pain, swelling, trismus, and
alveolar osteitis in the week following third
molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:1–6.
12. Sandhu A, Sandhu S, Kaur T. Comparison of
two different flap designs in the surgical
removal of bilateral impacted mandibular
third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2010;39:1091–6.
13. Dimitroulis G. Handbook of third molar
surgery. Melbourne: Butterworth-Hein-
mann; 2001: 89–91.
14. Dubois DD, Pizer ME, Chinnis RJ. Compar-
ison of primary and secondary closure tech-
niques after removal of impacted mandibular
third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1982;
40:631–4.
15. Szmyd L. Impacted teeth. Dent Clin North
Am 1971;15:299–318.
16. Blum IR. Contemporary views on dry socket
(alveolar osteitis): a clinical appraisal of
standardization, aetiopathogenesis and man-
agement: a critical review. Int J Oral Max-
illofac Surg 2002;31:309–17.
17. Ogundipe OK, Ugboko VI, Owotade FJ. Can
autologous platelet-rich plasma gel enhance
healing after surgical extraction of mandib-
ular third molars? J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2011;69:2305–10.
18. Sanchis Bielsa JM, Hernández-Bazán S,
Peñarrocha Diago M. Flap repositioning
versus conventional suturing in third molar
surgery. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
2008;1:138–42.
19. Osunde OD, Adebola RA, Saheeb BD. A
comparative study of the effect of suture-less
and multiple suture techniques on inflamma-
tory complications following third molar
surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;
41:1275–9.
20. Berwick WA. Alternate method of flap re-
flection. Br Dent J 1966;21:295–6.
YIJOM-3214; No of Pages 8
8 Yolcu and Acar
21. Obimakinde OS. Impacted mandibular third
molar surgery: an overview. Dentiscope
2009;16:2.
22. Osunde OD, Adebola RA, Omeje UK. Man-
agement of inflammatory complications in
third molar surgery: a review of the litera-
ture. Afr Health Sci 2011;11:530–7.
23. Hashemi HM, Beshkar M, Aghajani R. The
effect of sutureless wound closure on post-
operative pain and swelling after impacted
mandibular third molar surgery. Br J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:256–8.
24. Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Gutwald R, Reich-
man J, Otero-Cepeda XL, Schmelzeisen R.
Please cite this article in press as: Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in
third molar surgery, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.007
Marginal flap versus paramarginal flap in surgery. A retrospective clinical study. Oral
impacted third molar surgery: a prospective Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Endod 1997;84:345–8.
Radiol Endod 2003;95:403–8.
25. Valmaseda-Castellón E, Berini-Aytés L, Address:
Gay-Escoda C. Lingual nerve damage after Ümit Yolcu
third lower molar surgical extraction. Oral Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Faculty of Dentistry
Endod 2000;90:567–73. Inönü University
26. Walters H. Reducing lingual nerve damage 44280 Malatya
in third molar surgery: a clinical audit of Turkey
Tel: +90 535 9574903; Fax: +90 442 3411107
1350 cases. Br Dent J 1995;25(178):140–4.
E-mail: drumityolcu@hotmail.com
27. Fielding AF, Rachiele DP, Frazier G. Lingual
nerve paresthesia following third molar