Comparison of Coronectomy and complete extraction for impacted Third Molars in Close Proximity to Inferior Alveolar Nerve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of coronectomy versus complete extraction for the removal of impacted mandibular third molars in proximity to the inferior alveolar nerve. Study Design and Setting: This is a prospective, comparative interventional study that was carried out at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at de’Montmorency College of Dentistry/Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore. The study occurs within a time frame of six months and begins after the study proposal was approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP) and the institutional ethics review board. Methodology: A total of 160 patients were recruited, with equal allocation into two groups: 80 participants in the coronectomy group and 80 in the complete extraction group. Data collection was done using a structured proforma, and statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 27. Independent sample t-tests were applied for comparing mean pain durations, while chi-square tests were used for assessing group differences in paresthesia and swelling. A p-value of = 0.05 was considered statistically significant throughout. Results: Coronectomy is associated with significantly better postoperative outcomes compared to complete extraction. While both groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, and tooth laterality, the coronectomy group experienced a significantly shorter duration of pain (p = 0.004) and markedly lower incidences of paresthesia (p = 0.0001) and swelling (p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Coronectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, particularly swelling and paresthesia, making it a safer alternative to total extraction in cases where the impacted third molar is close to the inferior alveolar nerve.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".