Morales TB

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 285-290
PDF size: 113.43 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Alveolar osteitis is a common condition following dental extraction. The patient experiences pain, which conventional analgesics fail to relieve. Some 45% of patients who develop this complaint require at least 4 additional postoperative visits to manage the condition. There are two theories that attempt to explain this process, the first based on a complete absence of clotting, and the second, on the formation of clotting but accompanied by posterior lyses.
Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the number of postoperative days it took for the first pain symptoms of alveolar osteitis to appear, as well as details relating to age, sex, diagnosis and the number of sessions that were required in order to relieve such symptoms.
Materials and Methods: A total of 120 private practice patient files were studied, which included four distinct diagnoses. Those patients with pericoronitis received antibiotic therapy prior to the surgical procedure, whereas the others did not, instead receiving only an antiinflammatory premed (Nimesulide); no mouthwashes were used.
The patients were operated on by a single surgeon, who used the same surgical technique with all. The alveolar osteitis was defined as an intense pain that occurs between 3 and 5 days after surgery, which does not diminish following the ingestion of analgesics and requires an appointment for clinical review.
Conclusions: Alveolar osteitis following the extraction of lower third molars is a significant postoperative issue for patients and surgeons alike. It occurs more commonly in the latter than in any other tooth, showing an incidence of between 20 and 30%.
In this study, a total 17 of 190 extractions were reported to have resulted in alveolar osteitis. The patients affected require numerous visits to the dentist. Evidence indicates that the main etiological factors are bacterial contamination and poor oral hygiene.

REFERENCES

1. Larsen PE: Alveolar Osteítis alter surgical renoval of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Sur Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992; 73:393-397.

2. Krekmanov L. Alveolitis after operative removal of third molars in the mandible. J Oral Surg 1981;10:173-179.

3. Nitzan DW. On the Genesis of “Dray Socket”. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1983;41:706-710.

4. Larsen PE. The effect of a chlorhexidine rinse on the incidente of Alveolar osteitis Following the surgical renoval of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:932-937.

5. Castellanos JL, Díaz Guzmán LM, Gay OL. Medicina en Odontología. Manejo dental de pacientes con enfermedades sistémicas, 2ª Ed. México, El Manual Moderno. 2002. pp.741-708

6. Cosme GE, Leonardo BA. Cirugía Bucal 3a ed. Océano-Ergon, 2007.pp.245-260

7. Blakey G.H, Marciani R.D, Haugs R.H, Offenbacher S. Periodontal pathology associated whit asymptomatic third molar. J Oral Maxillofacial.2002;60:1227-1233

8. Sisk AL, Hammer EB, Shelton DW, Complications following removal of impacted third molars: the role of the experience of the surgeon. J Oral Maxillofacial Surgery 1986; 44:855-859.

9. Ritzau M, Therkildensen P. Antifibrinolitic prevention of alveolitis sicca dolorosa. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1978; 7:534-540.

10. Sweet JB, Butler DP, Drager JL. Effects of lavage techniques with third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1976;41:52-68

11. Julius LL, Hungerford RW, Nelson WJ . Prevention of dry socket with local application of Terra-Cortril in Gelfoam. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1982;40:285-286.