Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2025
Ye's Swing Technique for Small-incision Lenticule Extraction Surgery
Published on: June 27, 2025
Does Minimal-Invasive Envelope Flap Reduce Side Effects Compared to Conventional Envelope Flap Following Impacted
Kazem Khiabani1, Mohammad Hosein Amirzade-Iranaq2, Arman Babadi3
1Associate Professor, Director of Residency Program, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Purpose:
The surgical removal of impacted third molars can lead to various postoperative consequences, which can be influenced by modifiable factors such as flap design. The present study aimed to determine whether a minimal-invasive envelope flap (MIEF) can reduce surgical consequences and improve life quality compared to conventional envelope flap (CEF) after removing impacted mandibular third molars.
Material And Methods:
This single-blinded, cross-over randomized clinical trial was conducted on adult patients with bilateral, symmetrically impacted mandibular third molars. The flap design for surgical removal of the third molar was the primary predictor variable. The primary outcome (pain) and secondary outcome variables (swelling, mouth opening limitation [MOL]) were recorded daily and on the second and seventh days after the surgery, respectively. Wound dehiscence and patients' postoperative quality-of-life scores (PPOQL) were recorded on the seventh day. The data were analyzed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and paired sample t test using SPSS version 22. The P value < .5 was considered significant.
Results:
Sixty-eight impacted third molars of 34 subjects with a mean age of 22 ± 12.9 years (35% females) were followed. The postoperative pain level in the MIEF group at rest (0.80 ± 0.53) and chewing (2.10 ± 1.32) up to fifth day was significantly (P value < .01) lower than CEF group (2.40 ± 1.12 and 3.05 ± 1.13, respectively). The difference did not reach a significant level at rest and chewing on the sixth and seventh days (P value > .05). On the seventh day, the subjects in the MIEF group showed a significantly (P value < .001) lower level of swelling (1.13 ± 0.11) and MOL (8.28 ± 4.17) than the CEF group (3.2 ± 2.1 and 12.67 ± 4.92, respectively). Based on the PPOQL scale, patients in the MIEF group (1.82 ± 1.31) expressed a better recovery period than the CEF group (3.5 ± 2.1) (P value < .001).
Conclusions:
Considering the reduction of pain, swelling, MOL, and wound dehiscence in MIEF cases, the application of MIEF in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars can lead to a significant reduction in postoperative consequences and also a noticeable improvement in PPOQL compared to CEF.
