Primary and secondary closure technique following removal of impacted mandibular third molars: A comparative study

Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;3(1):10-4. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.102141.


Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the post operative healing, using primary versus second closure techniques after impacted mandibular third molar removal.

Materials and methods: The study consisted of twelve patients, Seven males and five females under 30 years of age were divided into two groups as Group A and Group B in the randomized fashion. In the Group A, closure was done by primary intention and in the Group B, by secondary closure. A comparison between both groups was done with a follow-up period of 6 h to 6 days with regards to postoperative pain and swelling.

Results: The statistical analysis (analysis of variance for repeated measures, P < 0.05) showed that pain was greater in Group A, although it decreased over time similarly in the two groups. Pain and swelling was less severe with secondary healing than with primary healing.

Conclusion: The outcome of this study suggested that secondary closure technique is better than primary closure technique for removal of impacted mandibular third molar with regards to postoperative pain and swelling.

Keywords: Impaction; postoperative pain and swelling; third molar surgery.