Menziletoglu, D.Guler, A. Y.Basturk, F.Isik, B. K.Erdur, E. A.2024-02-232024-02-2320202468-85092468-7855https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.08.006https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/12250Objective: We compared the effect of lingual-based triangular flap with buccal-based triangular flap on postoperative complications in impacted third molar surgery. Material and methods: Thirty patients aged between 18 and 36 (mean age 19.65 +/- 2.14) were included. They all had bilateral impacted third molars. We used buccal-based triangular flap on a randomly selected side (Group 1) and lingual-based triangular flap on the other side (Group 2). We evaluated pain during 7 days after the surgery; swelling and trismus on postoperative 2., 7. and 14. days; wound dehiscence and alveolar osteitis incidence on postoperative 7. and 14. days. Results: Pain was significantly higher in Group 2 during 7 days postoperatively (P < .05). Trismus and swelling were also more prominent in Group 2 on postoperative days 2 and 7. In Group 2, the duration of the surgery in was longer than Group 1 (P < .05). In Group 1, 17 patients (56.7%) had wound dehiscence and 6 patients (20%) in Group 2 (P < .05). No alveolar osteitis developed in either groups. Conclusion: The buccal-based triangular flap seems better with regard to postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. On the other hand, the lingual-based triangular flap had a lesser incidence for wound dehiscence. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessFlap TechniquesThird Molar SurgeryPainSwellingTrismusArticle1214368372314765392-s2.0-85071967891WOS:000572692400010Q410.1016/j.jormas.2019.08.006