Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Long-term effects of a bony mucoperiosteal flap on bone preservation in bony impacted upper third molar surgery: a
1Department of General Dentistry, Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & NHC Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical, No.22, Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, PR China. qw821013@sina.com.
Background:
This exploratory study evaluates the long-term effects of a maxillary bony mucoperiosteal flap (BMF) technique on bone preservation and periodontal condition following extraction of deeply impacted upper third molars (UTMs).
Methods:
In this two-arm, prospective exploratory study with a parallel-group design, bony impacted UTMs were allocated to either a control group (tooth extraction with pericoronal bone removal) or an experimental group (UTMs removal using the BMF technique). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed preoperatively and at 10-12 months postoperatively. Long-term bone volume change (LBVC) in the maxillary tuberosity was evaluated using Mimics 21.0 and Geomagic software. Distal probing depth and clinical attachment loss of the adjacent upper second molars were also recorded.
Results:
A total of 28 bony impacted UTMs from 24 patients (6 men and 18 women) were included. The mean age was 23.8 ± 3.8 years in the control group and 26.5 ± 5.6 years in the experimental group. Preoperative and postoperative tuberosity volumes were 1053.7 ± 385.9 mm3 and 609.8 ± 235.2mm3 in the control group, and 762.6 ± 280.2 mm3 and 649.3 ± 257.0 mm3 in the experimental group, respectively. The BMF technique was associated with a significantly lower LBVC compared with the conventional method. No significant changes in probing depth or clinical attachment loss were observed in either group.
Conclusion:
Given the exploratory nature of this study, our findings provide preliminary evidence that the BMF technique may achieve superior volumetric outcomes without compromising the periodontal health of adjacent teeth. However, due to the limited sample size, the observed degree of bone preservation may be an overestimation. Therefore, higher-level evidence from adequately powered, well-matched prospective studies is required to further substantiate the long-term benefits of this technique.
Trial Registration:
This research was registered in the Chinese Medical Research Registration and Filing System (Registration Number: ChiCTR2400083354, registration date: 2024/4/22).
