Comparison of immediate vs. delayed guided tissue regeneration in Infrabony defect of second molars after adjacent third molar extraction: a retrospective study

Abstract

Abstract Background The distal aspect of the second molar (d-M2) often exhibits infrabony defects due to the adjacent third molar. Although the defects can be treated by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) after removing the third molar, the optimal timing remains uncertain following third molar removal in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to compare delayed and immediate GTR treatments to assist in clinical decision-making. Methods D-M2 infrabony defects with a minimum 1-year follow-up were collected and divided into three groups: Immediate GTR group, which underwent third molar extraction and received GTR simultaneously; Delayed GTR group, which underwent delayed GTR at least 3 months after third molar extraction; and Control group, which underwent only scaling and root planing during third molar extraction. The clinical and radiographic parameters related to the infrabony defect before GTR and post-surgery were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test or one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Dunn’s test or the Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons. Results A total of 109 d-M2 infrabony defects were assessed. No significant differences were found between the two GTR groups, although both of them showed significant reductions in infrabony defect depth: the immediate GTR group (2.77 ± 1.97 mm vs. 0.68 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.001) and the delayed GTR group (2.98 ± 1.08 mm vs. 0.68 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. Conclusion GTR can effectively improve d-M2 infrabony defects when the third molar is removed, whether simultaneously or delayed. Patients may experience less discomfort with immediate GTR treatment as it requires only one surgery.

Keywords

• Bone regeneration
• Guided tissue regeneration
• Molar, second
• Molar, third