Lingual flap retraction and prevention of lingual nerve damage associated with third molar surgery: A systematic review of the literature

被引:53
作者
Pichler, JW [1 ]
Beirne, OR [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Sch Dent, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
来源
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY | 2001年 / 91卷 / 04期
关键词
D O I
10.1067/moe.2001.114154
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective, Lingual nerve damage sometimes occurs after the removal of third molars. The use of a lingual retractor has been advocated to protect the lingual nerve. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to evaluate the incidence of lingual nerve damage after third molar surgery and the effect of a lingual retractor on nerve damage. Study design. An exhaustive computerized search of several databases and references cited in the various studies was performed. Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify the 8 published studies acceptable for detailed analysis. The incidence and spontaneous recovery of lingual nerve injury for the following 3 surgical techniques were evaluated: the buccal approach with lingual flap retraction (BA+), or the buccal approach without lingual flap retraction (BA-), and the lingual split technique with lingual flap retraction (LS). Results. In the 8 selected articles, lingual nerve injury occurred in 9.6%, 6.4%, and 0.6% of the pooled LS, BA+, and BA-procedures, respectively. On the basis of risk ratios comparing combined incidence rates, lingual nerve injury is 8.8 times more likely to occur in BA+ than in BA- procedures (CI = 4.3-17.8), 13.3 times more likely to occur in LS than in BA- procedures (Cl = 6.6-26.9), and 1.5 times more likely to occur in LS than in BA+ procedures (CI = 1.2-1.8). Permanent lingual nerve injury occurred in 0.1%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of the combined LS, BA+, and BA- procedures, respectively. The combined permanent incidence risk ratios were not calculated because of the low permanent incidence rates. Conclusions, The use of a lingual nerve retractor during third molar surgery was associated with an increased incidence of temporary nerve damage and was neither protective nor detrimental with respect to the incidence of permanent nerve damage.
引用
收藏
页码:395 / 401
页数:7
相关论文
共 66 条
  • [1] ABSI EG, 1993, INT J ORAL MAXILLOF, P149
  • [2] SOMATOSENSORY EVOKED-POTENTIALS FOLLOWING TONGUE STIMULATION IN NORMAL SUBJECTS AND PATIENTS WITH LESIONS OF THE AFFERENT TRIGEMINAL SYSTEM
    ALTENMULLER, E
    CORNELIUS, CP
    BUETTNER, UW
    [J]. ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY AND CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 1990, 77 (06): : 403 - 415
  • [3] LINGUAL NERVE DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVAL OF LOWER 3RD MOLARS
    BLACKBURN, CW
    BRAMLEY, PA
    [J]. BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 1989, 167 (03) : 103 - 107
  • [4] EXPERIENCES IN LINGUAL NERVE REPAIR
    BLACKBURN, CW
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1992, 30 (02) : 72 - 77
  • [5] A METHOD OF ASSESSMENT IN CASES OF LINGUAL NERVE INJURY
    BLACKBURN, CW
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1990, 28 (04) : 238 - 245
  • [6] Blazek J, 1972, Dtsch Stomatol, V22, P256
  • [7] Factors influencing nerve damage during lower third molar surgery
    Brann, CR
    Brickley, MR
    Shepherd, JP
    [J]. BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 1999, 186 (10) : 514 - 516
  • [8] BRUCE RA, 1980, J AM DENT ASSOC, V101, P240
  • [9] Short-term neurosensory testing after removal of mandibular third molars efficacious?
    de Beukelaer, JGP
    Smeele, LE
    van Ginkel, FC
    [J]. ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 1998, 85 (04): : 366 - 370
  • [10] LITIGATION HAZARDS FOLLOWING FAILED EXTRACTIONS
    DOHVOMA, C
    HUTCHISON, I
    [J]. BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 1993, 174 (11) : 389 - 389