I read with interest and disappointment the article by Pichler and Beirne titled “Lingual
flap retraction and prevention of lingual nerve damage associated with third molar
surgery: A systematic review of the literature” in the April 2001 issue of Oral Surgery,
Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics (volume 91, pages 395-401).
The reason for my disappointment is very simple. In 1996, I had prepared a study with
Dr Mocan and Dr Kisnisci about the comparison of 2 surgical techniques for using third
molar removal.
1
This study was designed for 20 patients in 2 groups, and we used Howarth's periosteal
elevator for the reflection of lingual flap. We had an adequate follow-up period in
our study, and there were no sensory problems in our study groups. Only one patient
in our study group had dysphagia. I checked the references list; I also checked Table
I (excluded articles) and Table II (selected articles), but I could not see my article
in these lists. Have you any reasonable explanation for this elimination or for this
classification method? I think I need a scientific explanation.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral RadiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Stereophotogrammetric and clinical evaluation of morbidity after removal of lower third molars by two different surgical techniques.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 54: 171-175
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2002 Mosby, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
