The extraction of impacted third molars through surgery is a frequently performed procedure that encompasses various methods and subjective viewpoints. Many practitioners concur that the duration of the surgery, degree of trauma, and level of complexity significantly influence complications after the operation. The primary goal of the surgery is to efficiently and meticulously extract the impacted tooth while minimizing complications. Throughout time, there have been differing perspectives on the techniques of primary and secondary wound closure.

The surgical approach for the removal of lower third molars is different as the reflection of soft tissues and the amount of bone removed is substantially greater than other surgical tooth extractions

The primary closure of a third molar flap is based on fundamental surgical principles and endorsed by Howe, Archer, Guralnick, Kruger, Waite, Thoma, Killey, and Peterson.(1) Conversely, secondary intention is advocated by other authors like Hunter, Bourgoyne, Blair, Ivey, Padgett, and Mead to enhance irrigation and drainage.

Dubois reported a comparison of primary and secondary closure techniques after removal of impacted mandibular third molars in 46 patients but the differences were insignificant.(1)

The purpose of this study is to report the surgical outcomes of one surgeons standard third molar procedure and compare the results with the results of  surgical procedures involving placement of sutures for disimpaction of mandibular third molars.

Aim of the study : To evaluate the efficacy of suture-less surgical procedure against sutured surgical procedure in disimpaction of mandibular third molar surgery.

Objective : 

l  To evaluate the post-operative swelling, bleeding and discomfort of the patient in suture-less surgical procedure against sutured surgical procedure in disimpaction of mandibular third molar surgery.