Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-03-17, 11:08:54 | version 1.38.0
Figs. 4a–c Figs. 5a–c Figs. 6a–c a a a E v a l u a t i o n o f s u r g i c a l d i f f i c u l t y o f e x t r a c t i o n b c b b c c score of 19.4 ± 2.6 points). Extraction was not dificult in 14.6% of the patients (10–16 points on the surgical dificulty scale), of average difi- culty in 79.2% (17–23 points) and dificult in 6.3% (24–30 points). The maximum ostectomy time was 180 s, with a minimum time of 10 s (mean of 54.4 ± 28.2 s). Tooth sectioning was carried out in 74 cases, with a mean duration of 73.4 ± 45.7 s (maximum of 284 s). The mean total surgical time was 10.8 ± 5.3 min (maximum of 30 min and minimum of 4 min). The mean total surgical time was signifi cantly longer in the case of molars with mesial inclina- tion and in distal or horizontal presentations (p = 0.043). There were no great diferences on comparing inclination of the second molar and pericoronal and root radiolucency. However, very significant diferences were observed on com- paring root shape with ostectomy time (p = 0.001) and total surgical time (p = 0.001; Table 1). The general linear multiple regression model showed the quantitative parameters with the greatest influence upon ostectomy time to be Winter’s distance and the distance from the as- cending ramus to the second molar. A greater Winter’s distance prolonged ostectomy time and, conversely, a greater distance from the mandi bular ramus to the distal surface of the second molar was observed to shorten ostectomy time. The parameters found to be linearly correlated to total surgical time were coronal width and the distance from the ramus to the second molar. Total surgical time was longer in the presence of greater coronal width and a shorter distance from the ramus to the second molar. The only variable correlated to tooth sectioning time was coronal width (Table 2). Figs. 4a–c Root radiolucency: (a) large (1); (b) small (2); and (c) not visible (3). Figs. 5a–c Root shape: (a) single or fused (1); (b) separate (2); and (c) dysmorphic or anomalous (3). Figs. 6a–c Winter’s distance: (a) < 5 mm (1); (b) 5–9 mm (2); and (c) > 9 mm (3). Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 1/2017 55