***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Fifty-two consecutive healthy patients with bilateral , similarly impacted m and ibular third molars were studied . For each patient , both third molars were removed at the same operation by the same experienced operator . On one side , the lingual split method by chisel was used ; on the other , the buccal approach with surgical bur . St and ard preoperative and postoperative drug regimens were used . Pain , facial swelling ( visual analogue scales ) , and lingual and labial sensory disturbance were recorded for each side by the patients at home 6 , 24 , and 48 h and 7 days after surgery . Wound healing was assessed at 4 weeks . There were no statistically significant differences between methods in relation to pain , facial swelling , sensory loss , infection , or periodontal pocket depth distal to the second molar , although 2 % of third molars removed by chisel had lingual sensory disturbance at 7 days , as compared with 8 % where burs had been used . There were no statistically significant differences between duration of procedures ; mean operating time with burs was 8.28 min ( range 4 - 15 min ) and with chisels 7.57 min ( range 4 - 15 min ) . This study provided no evidence of difference in either efficiency or outcome between two st and ard methods of removing lower third molars PURPOSE This study compared swelling , pain , and trismus after using the conventional buccal approach and the lingual split technique for the removal of impacted third molars . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Twenty patients with a mean age of 21.5 years were included . Postoperative edema was followed stereophotogrammetrically for 48 hours by transferring photogrammetric data from three-dimensional profile views into orthographic maps . A visual analog scale was used for 6 days for determining pain . Mouth opening was measured on the 1st , 2nd , and 7th postoperative days . RESULTS Maximal swelling was noted in both groups on the second postoperative day . In both groups , maximal trismus was noted on the first postoperative day . Approximately 98 % of the measurements of interincisal distances had returned to the preoperative values by the 7th day . There was no significant difference in the pain intensity between the two groups on postoperative days 1 through 6 . Swelling ( P = .88 ) and pain ( P = .12 ) were not significantly different in either groups . Trismus was found to be significantly less ( P = .03 ) in the lingual split group . CONCLUSION Although swelling and pain were comparable in both groups , the amount of trismus was less with the lingual split technique . This may be an advantage of the latter technique Injuries to the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve are recognised complications of third molar surgery . In a prospect i ve study , permanent damage was found to be significantly related to bone removal using a surgical drill . The Howarth periosteal elevator may not provide adequate protection to the lingual nerve when a surgical drill is This study was conducted to compare two different techniques used in odontectomy of impacted m and ibular third molar ; the modified lingual split technique and the conventional buccal technique as regarding the duration of surgery as well as the incidence of postoperative sequelae such as pain , edema , and trismus . This study was carried out on thirty adult male patients having class II , position B mesioangular impacted m and ibular third molar scheduled for removal , the cases were divided into two equal groups . Group one using the conventional buccal technique and group two using the modified lingual split technique .  Pain was categorized into a three grade scale according to the dose of the analgesic taken by the patients postoperatively . The degree of trismus was calculated by measuring the interincisal distance when the mouth was opened at a maximum using a graduated caliper both preoperatively and postoperatively . Edema was measured linearly using a tape between different predetermined facial anatomical l and marks in different planes . All measurements were carried out immediately before surgery and after one , two and seven days postoperatively . The collected data were tabulated and were statistically analyzed . There was a significant difference between the two techniques as regarding the duration of surgery in favour of the modified lingual split technique , with a mean of 36.3 minutes , in group two against a mean of 54.3 minutes in group I. As regarding pain there was no significant difference in the first and the second postoperative days , while there was a significant difference in favour of the modified lingual split bone technique in the seventh postoperative day . Trismus and edema were comparable in both groups 
    Output:
    
The limited analysis allowed by the number and size of the studies leads to tentative conclusions of no difference between postoperative pain and swelling , and some evidence of less trismus for the lingual split technique .