A Comparison Between Comma Incision and Ward’s Incision in Third Molar Extraction in Terms of Postoperative Sequel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim We aim to look at the differences between the standard Ward's incision and the comma-shaped incision and how they affect complications after surgery to remove an impacted mandibular third molar. Materials and methods Mandibular third molars had to be carefully extracted from a total of 40 patients who were randomly divided into two groups of 20 patients each. At first, patients were evaluated before surgery. In group A, a standard Ward's incision was made, and in group B, a comma incision was made to match the mucoperiosteal fold. Afterward, the impacted third molars were carefully removed. The evaluation criteria for pain, swelling, lockjaw, and healing of wounds were done before surgery, after three hours, and on the first, third, and seventh day after surgery. Result The pain scores that were recorded right after surgery, three hours later, and on days 1, 3, and 7 in the surgical area with comma-shaped incision were all lower than the pain scores that were recorded in the area where standard incisions were made. Enlarging was less with comma entry point than with standard Ward's incision. After surgery, there was a big difference between the two entry points in how the mouth opened and how the wounds were fixed. These findings showed that the comma incision is better than the standard Ward's incision when it comes to pain, enlargement, lockjaw, and healing of wounds. Conclusion The study results showed that the comma-shaped incision was better than the traditional method (Ward's incision) because there were fewer problems after surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".