Open Access
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 29, Number 1, 2023
Article Number 7
Number of page(s) 6
Published online 03 February 2023
  1. Xie Q, Wei S, Zhou N, Huang X. Modified envelope flap, a novel incision design, can relieve complications after extraction of fully horizontal impacted mandibular third molar. J Dental Sci 2021; 16: 718–722. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Said NM, Osman SM, Sweedan AO. Comparison between the lingually based and the buccally based triangular flap design in the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars (clinical trial). Alex. Dental J. 2021;46:36–42. [Google Scholar]
  3. Prajapati A, Menat S, Patel P, Patel N, Patel J. Efficacy of lingually based triangular flap vs routinely used triangular flap design in third molar surgery. J Med Sci Clin Res 2020; 8: 212–221. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey E, Kashbour W, Shah N, Worthington HV, Renton TF, Coulthard P. Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 7: D004345. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nageshwar. Comma incision for impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 60: 1506–1509. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kumar BS, Sarumathi T, Veerabahu M, Raman U. To compare standard incision and comma shaped incision and its influence on post-operative complications in surgical removal of impacted third molars. J Clin Diagn Res 2013; 7: 1514–1518. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hassan B, Al-Khanati NM, Bahhah H. Effect of lingual-based flap design on postoperative pain of impacted mandibular third molar surgery: split mouth randomized clinical trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2020; 25: e660–e667. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rai A, Rai M. Lingual based four cornered flap for third molar surgery. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2017; 16 (2): 258–259. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Yolcu U, Acar AH. Comparison of a new flap design with the routinely used triangular flap design in third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44: 1390–1397. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Yuan L, Gao J, Liu S, Zhao H. Does the lingual-based mucoperiosteal flap reduce postoperative morbidity compared with the buccal-based mucoperiosteal flap after the surgical removal of impacted third molars? A meta-analysis review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 79: 1409–1421. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Menziletoglu D, Guler AY, Basturk F, Isik BK, Erdur EA. Comparison of two different flap designs for bilateral impacted mandibular third molar surgery. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 121: 368–372. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bello SA, Adeyemo WL, Bamgbose BO, Obi EV, Adeyinka AA. Effect of age, impaction types and operative time on inflammatory tissue reactions following lower third molar surgery. Head Face Med 2011; 28: 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  13. Maria A, Malik M, Virang P. Comparison of primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012; 11: 276–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chaudhary M, Singh M, Singh S, Singh SP, Kaur G. Primary and secondary closure technique following removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a comparative study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2012; 3: 10–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.