Is there a role for reconstructive techniques to prevent periodontal defects after third molar surgery?

Purpose: Among patients at high risk for second molar (M2) periodontal defects after third molar (M3) removal, does active treatment at the time of extraction, when compared with no treatment, alter the risk of postextraction M2 periodontal defects? Materials and Methods: We used a prospective cohort study design and a sample composed of subjects at high risk for developing M2 periodontal defects after M3 extraction, that is, age >= 26 years, pre-existing periodontal defects (attachment level [AL] >= 3 mm), and mesioangular or horizontal M3 impaction. The predictor variable was treatment status of the M3 extraction site. The M3 extraction sites were reconstructed with demineralized bone powder (DBP), bioresorbable guided tissue regeneration (GTR) therapy, or no treatment. The outcome variable was ALs measured at the M2 distobuccal line angle preoperatively and 26 weeks after extraction. Appropriate univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics were computed, and statistical significance was set at a value P <.05. Results: The cohort was composed of 12 subjects contributing 18 high-risk M3s. Twenty-six weeks after M3 removal, the ALs for GTR-treated (3.0 +/- 1.2 mm), DBP-treated (1.4 +/- 0.5 mm), and control (3.8 +/- 0.9) M3 sites were statistically significantly different (P =.002). Tukey post-hoc comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference between control and DBP ALs (P =.001) and GTR-treated and DBP-treated ALs (P.037). There was no statistically significant difference in ALs between control and GTR-treated M3s (P=.35). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that subjects at high risk for developing M2 periodontal defects after M3 removal may benefit from the use of DBP placed at the time of M3 extraction to enhance periodontal healing. (C) 2005 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.