3.8 Review

Labial Frenectomy using Laser: A Scoping Review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
Volume 2023, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2023/7321735

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Labial frenectomy is a surgical technique that aims to remove the frenulum attached to the underlying bone. This study compared the effectiveness of laser technique with conventional surgical technique for labial frenectomy. The review suggests that laser-performed labial frenectomy is faster and offers better intra- and postoperative management, but more research is needed for definitive conclusions.
Labial frenectomy is a surgical technique, that aims to remove the frenulum with its attachment to the underlying bone. Frenectomy, is indicated if the frenulum attachment causes midline diastema, gingival recession, hindrance in maintaining oral hygiene, or if it interferes with lip movements and for prosthetic needs. A labial frenectomy can be performed either by the routine scalpel technique, electrocautery, and most recently medical lasers. The aim of this study was to evaluate, whether the laser technique is more effective than the conventional surgical technique, and whether there are differences between the different types of lasers. The scoping review was conducted and prepared on the basis of the indications of the PRISMA guidelines (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, PRISMA-ScR) of PRISMA checklist, and nine papers were considered admissible to the qualitative analysis for the following outcomes: bleeding during intervention, use of sutures, duration of the intervention, and use of analgesic drugs in the days following the intervention. This review suggests that laser-performed labial frenectomy is faster and offers better intra- and postoperative management; however, due to the limited number of available papers, the final results of the present review are not absolute.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available