Influence of immediate post-extraction socket irrigation on development of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third...

The aim of this prospective comparative split-mouth study was to evaluate the role of socket irrigation with a normal saline solution routinely used at the end of extraction on the development of alveolar osteitis (AO) after removal of impacted mandibular third molars (MTMs).

Thirty-five patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were involved in the study and underwent extraction of four third-molars. To be included in the study, the mandibular third molars had to be impacted (partial or full bone) and require an osteotomy for extraction with use of a motorised drill. All surgeries were done under local anaesthesia or IV sedation. This was a prospective split-mouth study. The patient's left (assistant) side was a control side; it had a standard extraction technique of an impacted mandibular third molar that required a buccal full-thickness flap, buccal trough (osteotomy) and extraction of the tooth (with or without splitting the tooth into segments), followed by a traditional end-of-surgery debridement protocol consisting of a gentle curettage, bone filing of the socket walls, socket irrigation with approximately 5 ml of sterile normal saline solution and socket suctioning. The patient's right (operator) side was an experimental side; it also had a standard extraction technique of an impacted mandibular third molar at the beginning with a flap and osteotomy, but it was followed by a modified end-of-surgery protocol. It consisted of gentle curettage but the socket was not irrigated and not suctioned. It was simply left to bleed. The gauze was placed on top of the socket for haemostasis on both sides and the patient was asked to bite. On both sides, the buccal flap was positioned back without the suture. All patients were seen for a follow-up appointment four to seven days after the surgery to assess healing and check for symptoms and signs of alveolar osteitis, if present, on both irrigated and non-irrigated sides. This study followed the ethical guidelines of human subjects based on the Helsinki Declaration.

Thirty-five patients or 70 sockets were evaluated. Eleven out of 35 patients in the study were subjected to a dry socket syndrome (31.4%). The higher number of AO was likely related to specifics of MTM selection in this study - only impacted (partial and full bone) MTMs were chosen. Among eleven patients with AO, two patients had a bilateral condition. By excluding two patients with bilateral dry sockets from the study, there were nine patients (18 extraction sites) with unilateral AO in the study. Seven out of nine patients (14 extraction sites) developed unilateral dry socket on the control (irrigated) side (77.8%) and only two (four extraction sites) on the experimental (non-irrigated) side (22.2%). Therefore, in this study there were 3.5 times more patients (extraction sites) with dry socket syndrome on the irrigated (control) side than patients (extraction sites) in the non-irrigated (experimental) side.

A noticeable difference of dry socket syndromes (77.8% on the irrigated versus 22.2% on non-irrigated side) was demonstrated between the traditional extraction protocol versus modified approach without the end-of-surgery irrigation. The study demonstrated that the post-extraction socket bleeding is very important for the proper uncomplicated socket healing. If it's not washed away with irrigation solution at the end of extraction, the normal blood clot has a higher likelihood to form, and therefore, can potentially lead to an uncomplicated socket healing without development of alveolar osteitis. Socket bleeding at the extraction site creates a favourable environment for the formation of a blood clot - a protective dressing - necessary for a favourable osseous healing of the socket.