Controversy, evidence, and third molar management

The effect of preoperative low-level laser therapy on pain, swelling, and trismus associated with mandibular third molar extraction

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) applied before mandibular third molar extractions on postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 28 patients aged 18-45 years with bilaterally impacted mandibular third molars in similar positions, indicated for extraction based on clinical and radiographic examinations. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 received LLLT 10 min before surgery, while Group 2 (control group) underwent routine impacted tooth extraction after applying blue LED light. Measurements were taken preoperatively and at 24 h (T0), 48 h (T1), and 7 days (T2) postoperatively to assess the effects of LLLT on pain, swelling, and trismus. Statistical analysis was performed using the Jamovi 2.2.5 software. Due to the non-normal data distribution, the Friedman test was used for repeated measures within groups, while the Mann-Whitney U test was employed to compare the laser and control groups.

RESULTS

The study included 23 female (82.14%) and 5 male (17.86%) patients, with a mean age of 21.34 ± 4.37 years. No statistically significant differences were observed between the laser and control groups concerning pain, trismus, and swelling at T0, T1, and T2 (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, preoperative LLLT showed clinically acceptable effects on postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the long-term success of LLLT.

Assessment of complications in third molar surgery performed by resident surgeons: A comprehensive analysis

Introduction

Third molar extractions present a wide spectrum of reported complications, spanning from 2.6 % to 30.9 %, making it challenging to predict outcomes for individual patients.This study seeks to evaluate third molar extractions conducted exclusively by stomatology or maxillofacial surgery residents, examining associated complications. Its aim also extends to delineating the related risks concerning epidemiological and clinical factors, juxtaposed against findings in the existing literature.

Materials and methods

An observational prospective cohort study was conducted at the Clinical and Academic Centre of Coimbra, Portugal, from July 2021 to December 2023. Descriptive statistics were used considering the adequate statistical parameters. Inferential statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test, the Chi-squared test, and Spearman rank correlation to analyze the relationship between study variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

485 patients underwent third molar extractions performed exclusively by stomatology and maxillofacial surgery residents, comprising a total of 686 extracted teeth and resulting in 71 reported complications (14.6 % per patient and 10.3 % per extracted tooth). Results revealed that patients undergoing lower third molar extraction faced a 3.7 times higher risk of complications compared to those undergoing upper third molar extraction. Teeth categorized as "IIIC" by Pell and Gregory's classification and those undergoing osteotomy and odontosection also exhibited a higher-than-expected complication rate with statistically significant differences being observed. No other variables showed a positive or negative statistically significant correlation with complication occurrence.

Discussion and conclusion

Despite the expectation of a heightened complication rate, this study revealed that a successful and comprehensive training regimen results in encountering complication rates akin to those documented in established literature.These findings also underscore the importance of recognizing that a resident's surgical accomplishment is intrinsically tied to acknowledging and respecting their learning curve.

Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care.

RESULTS

The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy.

FUTURE WORK

Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.