This study aimed to analyze the clinical application and prognosis of minimally invasive tooth extraction techniques for maxillary third molars. A total of 110 patients with impacted maxillary third molars were included and retrospectively analyzed. Fifty-three patients in the control group were treated with traditional chisel and crown extraction, and 57 patients in the observation group were treated with minimally invasive extraction. The operative effect, perioperative symptoms, and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups. The operation time and alveolar fossa healing time in the observation group were (16.30 ± 3.56) minutes and (7.80 ± 2.59) days shorter than those in the traditional tooth extraction group, and the blood loss was (6.78 ± 3.01) mL less than that in the control group. The alveolar bone absorption was better in 36 cases of type I, 16 cases of type II, 4 cases of type III, and 1 case of type IV. The Visual Analog Scale score and wound swelling score in the observation group were lower than those in the traditional tooth extraction group, and the degree of mouth opening limitation was 0 in 32 cases, 1 in 19 cases, 2 in 3 cases, and 3 in 3 cases, and the results were better than those in the control group. There were 3 cases of adjacent teeth injury, 0 cases of root fracture, 3 cases of infection, and 5 cases of lip numbness in the minimally invasive tooth extraction group, and the number of postoperative complications was less than that in the control group, with statistical significance ( P < .05). Minimally invasive tooth extraction in the extraction of impacted maxillary third molar has better surgical effect, less perioperative symptoms and lower postoperative complications, which can improve the efficiency and safety of the operation and has certain clinical value and application prospects in modern stomatology.
Yanpei Wei (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: