Evaluation of parental perceptions of lingual and labial frenectomy on their child: a comparison of CO2 laser and conventional scalpel

To evaluate parental reports of postoperative pain, improvement and satisfaction following frenectomy with scalpel versus carbon dioxide (CO2) laser treatment. Forty-nine patients aged 2–6 years with a short labial or lingual frenulum who required frenectomy were randomly assigned to undergo CO2 laser or scalpel treatment. They were divided into a labial and a lingual frenulum group based on the severity of attachment. Frenectomy was performed using a scalpel or Pixel CO2 10,600 nm laser (Alma Lasers Company, Caesarea, Israel). Postoperative follow-up was conducted via a mobile application where pain was evaluated daily using the visual analog scale (VAS) in the first 72 hours, and painkiller use was recorded. Improvement and satisfaction were evaluated at 1-month post-surgery and compared among the groups. Our results showed significant differences between the degree of clinical attachment of the frenulum, one-month postoperative improvement and satisfaction based on VAS scores (p < 0.001). Although the use of scalpel was associated with lower postoperative pain scores than the CO2 groups, VAS scores of improvement and satisfaction after 1 month were higher in the CO2 groups (p < 0.05). This study showed that although laser was associated with more postoperative pain, it showed greater improvement and higher satisfaction among patients’ parents at 1 month post-surgery compared with scalpel.

Frenectomy; LASER; Tongue-tie; Paediatric; Oral Surgery

[1] Walsh J, McKenna Benoit M. Ankyloglossia and other oral ties. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. 2019; 52: 795–811.

[2] Mills N, Geddes DT, Amirapu S, Mirjalili SA. Understanding the lingual frenulum: histological structure, tissue composition, and implications for tongue tie surgery. International Journal of Otolaryngology. 2020; 2020: 1820978.

[3] Priyanka M, Emmadi P, Ambalavanan N, Sruthi R, Ramakrishnan T. An overview of frenal attachments. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2013; 17: 12.

[4] Mills N, Keough N, Geddes DT, Pransky SM, Mirjalili SA. Defining the anatomy of the neonatal lingual frenulum. Clinical Anatomy. 2019; 32: 824–835.

[5] Baxter RT, Zaghi S, Lashley AP. Safety and efficacy of maxillary labial frenectomy in children: a retrospective comparative cohort study. International Orthodontics. 2022; 20: 100630.

[6] Kotlow LA. Oral diagnosis of abnormal frenum attachments in neonates and infants: evaluation and treatment of the maxillary and lingual frenum using the Erbium: YAG laser. Journal of Pediatric Dental Care. 2004; 10: 11–14.

[7] Hand P, Olivi G, Lajolo C, Gioco G, Marigo L, Castagnola R, et al. Short lingual frenum in infants, children and adolescents. Part 1: breastfeeding and gastroesophageal reflux disease improvement after tethered oral tissues release. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2020; 21: 309–317.

[8] Lalakea ML, Messner AH. Ankyloglossia: does it matter? Pediatric Clinics of North America. 2003; 50: 381–397.

[9] Jain P, Rathee M. Embryology, Tongue. 2021. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547697/ (Accessed: 31 December 2021).

[10] Kotlow LA. Ankyloglossia (tongue-tie): a diagnostic and treatment quandary. Quintessence International. 1999; 30: 259–262.

[11] Ballard JL, Auer CE, Khoury JC. Ankyloglossia: assessment, incidence, and effect of frenuloplasty on the breastfeeding dyad. Pediatrics. 2002; 110: e63.

[12] Hogan M, Westcott C, Griffiths M. Randomized, controlled trial of division of tongue-tie in infants with feeding problems. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 2005; 41: 246–250.

[13] Messner AH, Lalakea ML, Aby J, Macmahon J, Bair E. Ankyloglossia. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery. 2000; 126: 36.

[14] Ricke LA, Baker NJ, Madlon-Kay DJ, DeFor TA. Newborn tongue-tie: prevalence and effect on breast-feeding. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2005; 18: 1–7.

[15] Devishree, Gujjari SK, Shubhashini PV. Frenectomy: a review with the reports of surgical techniques. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2012; 6: 1587–1592.

[16] O’Callahan C, Macary S, Clemente S. The effects of office-based frenotomy for anterior and posterior ankyloglossia on breastfeeding. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2013; 77: 827–832.

[17] Pirnat S. Versatility of an 810 nm diode laser in dentistry: an overview. Journal of Laser and Health Academy. 2007; 4: 1–9.

[18] Cunha RF, Silva JZ, Faria MD. Clinical approach of ankyloglossia in babies: report of two cases. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2008; 32: 277–281.

[19] Kara C. Evaluation of patient perceptions of frenectomy: a comparison of Nd: YAG laser and conventional techniques. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2008; 26: 147–152.

[20] Protásio ACR, Galvão EL, Falci SGM. Laser techniques or scalpel incision for labial frenectomy: a meta-analysis. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2019;18: 490–499.

[21] Twycross A, Voepel-Lewis T, Vincent C, Franck LS, von Baeyer CL. A debate on the proposition that self-report is the gold standard in assessment of pediatric pain intensity. The Clinical Journal of Pain. 2015; 31: 707–712.

[22] Olivi G, Chaumanet G, Genovese MD, Beneduce C, Andreana S. Er,Cr:YSGG laser labial frenectomy: a clinical retrospective evaluation of 156 consecutive cases. General Dentistry. 2010; 58: e126–33.

[23] Olivi M, Genovese MD, Olivi G. Laser labial frenectomy: a simplified and predictable technique. Retrospective clinical study. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018; 19: 56–60.

[24] Kotlow L. Diagnosis and treatment of ankyloglossia and tied maxillary fraenum in infants using Er:YaG and 1064 diode lasers. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2011; 12: 106–112.

[25] Haytac MC, Ozcelik O. Evaluation of patient perceptions after frenectomy operations: a comparison of carbon dioxide laser and scalpel techniques. Journal of Periodontology. 2006; 77: 1815–1819.

[26] Tambuwala A, Sangle A, Khan A, Sayed A. Excision of oral leukoplakia by CO2 lasers versus traditional scalpel: a comparative study. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2014; 13: 320–327.

[27] Ghaheri BA, Cole M, Fausel SC, Chuop M, Mace JC. Breastfeeding improvement following tongue‐tie and lip‐tie release: a prospective cohort study. The Laryngoscope. 2017; 127: 1217–1223.

[28] Baxter R, Merkel-Walsh R, Baxter BS, Lashley A, Rendell NR. Functional improvements of speech, feeding, and sleep after lingual frenectomy tongue-tie release: a prospective cohort study. Clinical Pediatrics. 2020; 59: 885–892.

[29] Klockars T, Pitkäranta A. Pediatric tongue-tie division: indications, techniques and patient satisfaction. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2009; 73: 1399–1401.

[30] Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, Patton JT, Macdonald D, Simpson AH, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013; 3: e002525.

[31] Yadav RK, Verma UP, Sajjanhar I, Tiwari R, George K. Frenectomy with conventional scalpel and Nd: YAG laser technique: a comparative evaluation. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2019; 23: 48–52.