{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Comparison Between the Bone Lid Technique and the Traditional Technique in Surgical Treatment of the Posterior Mandibular Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
{Author}: Abu Hawa MH;Shehri Z;Alkhouri I;Abu Hawa MH;Shehri Z;Alkhouri I;
{Journal}: Cureus
{Volume}: 14
{Issue}: 6
{Year}: Jun 2022
暂无{DOI}: 10.7759/cureus.26223
{Abstract}: Introduction Cystic lesions of the jaws and the impacted teeth are two of the most common cases that require surgical intervention in oral and maxillofacial surgery; however, surgeons also frequently use a traditional technique that involves the removal of the buccal bone plate. This study was conducted to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of the bone lid technique and the traditional technique. Methods This randomized controlled trial included 20 patients who were randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 each): the T group, in which the lesions were accessed using the traditional technique with classical rotating instruments, and the BL group, in which the lesions were accessed with the bone lid technique performed using a piezoelectric device, with repositioning of the buccal bone plate. Operative time, pain, edema, inferior alveolar nerve injury, and bone defect healing were measured during clinical and radiological follow-ups at 24 h, 72 h, one week, one month, and six months after the surgery. Results Normal soft tissue and bone healing were observed in all cases except one case in the BL group. The T group had a shorter mean operative time than the BL group. In terms of pain, edema, and inferior alveolar nerve injury, the groups did not differ statistically significantly. The percentage of bone defect healing was significantly greater in the BL group than in the T group after six months of follow-up. Conclusion The bone lid technique performed using a piezoelectric device was effective and safe for managing lesions in the posterior mandibular region and was not associated with increased postoperative complications. The disadvantages of this technique include a longer operative time and the need for fixation tools in some cases. In contrast, this technique outperforms the traditional technique in terms of reducing bone loss and improving the healing of bone defects.