The Incidence of Periodontal Defects Distal to the Maxillary Second Molar After Impacted Third Molar Extraction

Clinical, tomographic, and histological analysis of post-extraction dental sockets filled with particulate dentin or blood clot: pilot study of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This preliminary study aims to compare the clinical, radiological, and histological outcomes of third molar socket repairs after dental extraction with and without the use of particulate dentin graft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients requiring bilateral surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars were selected. One side received a blood clot (control side) and the other an autologous particulate dentin graft (experimental side). Postoperative evaluations at 7 and 21 days assessed pain, edema, trismus, suture dehiscence, and wound edge coaptation. At 120 days, CBCT was used to evaluate bone density, and a biopsy was performed for histological analysis. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS software with descriptive statistics and paired t-test at a 5% significance level.

RESULTS

At 21 days, only one case of suture dehiscence occurred on the experimental side, compared to three on the control side. No differences in pain, edema, or trismus were observed between groups. Tomographic analysis showed no significant difference in the distance from the alveolar bone crest to the CEJ, but the experimental group had significantly higher bone density (p = 0.002). Histologically, the experimental side exhibited thicker, denser connective tissue with higher cellularity, collagen production, and multinucleated giant cells, while the control side showed typical connective tissue with fewer multinucleated cells.

CONCLUSION

Particulate dentin grafting showed benefits in bone density and clinical stability, with a more advanced histological healing stage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Improve post-extraction socket healing, offering a promising alternative to traditional methods, particularly in terms of enhancing bone regeneration and clinical outcomes.

Assessment of Changes in the Outcome of Autogenous Tooth Grafts Over Time: A Clinical Study Evaluating Periodontal Healing in Bone Defects After Lower Third Molar Removal

BACKGROUND

The removal of impacted lower third molars (ILTMs) is associated with bone defects in the distal area of second molars. Different methods have been described to minimize these defects.

PURPOSE

The primary objective was to assess changes in probing depth (PD) over time (up to 36 months) between test (grafted) and control (ungrafted) groups; the graft was obtained from the extracted ILTM.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

This split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Postgraduate Course in Oral Surgery of the Faculty of Dentistry of the Complutense University of Madrid. Adult patients requiring bilateral ILTM extraction with adjacent second molars were recruited, excluding pregnant/lactating women, patients in treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and patients with periodontal diseases.

PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

The predictor variable was the graft technique. The bone defect after ILTM removal was treated with autogenous tooth graft (ATG) in the test group, leaving the control group ungrafted.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

PD on the distobuccal, distomedial, and distolingual surfaces was recorded in both groups and averaged at baseline (T0), 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 36 months (T3) postoperatively.

COVARIATES

Sex, age, surgical time, ILTM situation and position between groups were assessed.

ANALYSES

ANOVA repeated measures for comparisons between groups and the Friedman test for comparisons within the groups over time were applied. Statistical significance was established with a confidence interval of 95% (P < .05).

RESULTS

The sample comprised 22 patients (6 males, 16 females) with a mean age of 21.68 ± 2.19 years; 44 ILTM extractions were performed. Statistically significant differences in PD average were found between groups (P < .001, 95% confidence interval) at 3 (1.63 ± 0.29), 6 (1.76 ± 0.3), and 36 months (1.74 ± 0.36). Reductions from T0 to T3 of 2.74 ± 0.28 (P < .001) and 0.54 ± 0.3 (P = .43) were observed in test and control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

ATG placed on the distal surface of lower second molars and almost completely filling the extraction socket improved PD 3, 6 and 36 months after ILTM. Furthermore, no significant changes in PD were observed over time; no major complications occurred. ATG appears to be a viable alternative graft material for this procedure.

A Pilot Retrospective Study on the Effect of Bone Grafting after Wisdom Teeth Extraction

This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the effect of bone graft after extraction of wisdom teeth impacting with the distal aspect of the second molar, on soft tissue wound healing, bone loss, and periodontal parameters. Sixteen patients treated an for impacted mandibular wisdom tooth at least one year ago were re-called (18 teeth). Dental panoramic tomography and periodontal parameters were assessed. A graft material was used to fill the post-extractive sockets in the test group (GUIDOR easy-graft CRYSTAL), whereas in the control group, the socket was filled using a collagen sponge and blood clot (Hemocollagene, Septodont, Matarò, Spain). The radiographic bone loss was measured at the distal aspect of the second molar. The Wilcoxon singed-rank test for paired data was performed to evaluate statistical differences. In the test group, only two cases out of nine showed bone loss, with an average of 0.55 ± 1.30 mm. Conversely, in the control group, five teeth out of nine showed bone resorption with an average of 1.22 ± 1.30 mm. However, the differences were not statistically significant. Periodontal parameters at the second molar demonstrated similar behavior between the test and control groups. Soft tissue healing complications were lower in the grafted compared to the comparator sites without reaching statistical significance. Within the limitations of the present study, no difference was found between the two groups.

Five-Years Periodontal Outcomes of Early Removal of Unerupted Third Molars Referred for Orthodontic Purposes

PURPOSE

The removal of third molars (M3) is one of the most common oral-maxillofacial surgical procedures affecting periodontal tissues of neighboring second molars (M2). The aim of this study was to evaluate the periodontal status of lower M2 following the removal of unerupted lower M3 up to 5 years after removal.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Primary predictor variable in this prospective cohort-study was time [baseline (BL; preoperatively), 6 and 60 months postoperatively]. The primary outcome variable was probing pocket depth (PPD). Clinical attachment level (CAL) was defined as a secondary outcome variable. Plaque index (PlI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed descriptively. All variables were compared using nonparametric tests. M3 were classified as either completely bony or partially bony unerupted. Risk factors (removed M3, type of impaction, mean BL PPD≥4 mm, gender, age) were analyzed (repeated measures ANCOVA). The significance level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

From originally 91 subjects enrolled in this study, 39 subjects (22 females; mean age: 21.6 ± 2.5 years) contributing 39 M3 completed the study after 5 years. Average BL PPD significantly decreased at 6 (-0.50 ± 0.61 mm, P = .001), 60 months (-0.81 ± 0.56, P < .0001), as well as between 6 and 60 months (-0.31 ± 0.51 mm, P = .030). Corresponding CAL values decreased accordingly (BL-6 months: -0.37 ± 0.59 mm, P = .004; BL-60 months: -0.67 ± 0.55 mm, P < .0001; 6 to 60 months: -0.34 ± 0.48 mm, P = .004). The was confirmed as risk factor for PPD (P = .026) and CAL (P = .042) changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Average PPD and CAL of mandibular M2 in young subjects improved 5 years after early removal of unerupted M3 in favor of an initial partially bony unerupted type of impaction.

Prevention of Periodontal Pocket Formation after Mandibular Third Molar Extraction Using Dentin Autologous Graft: A Split Mouth Case Report

Surgical extraction of the third molar can often result in the development of a periodontal pocket distal to the second molar that could delay the healing, and the socket could be colonized by bacteria and lead to secondary abscesses, or it may cause mobility or hypersensitivity. The aim of this case report is to assess the efficacy of a dentin autograft in the prevention of periodontal dehiscences after the surgical extraction of the third molar, obtained by the immediate grinding of the extracted tooth. A healthy 18-year-old male patient underwent surgery of both impacted mandibular molars: right postextractive socket was filled with grinded dentin; then, the left one was filled with fibrin sponge. The patient was followed up for six months, and clinical and radiographic assessment were performed: measurements of plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival index (GI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing pocket depth (PPD) were done before surgery and repeated at 90 and 180 days after the extractions. Measurements made at six months after the surgery revealed that the grafted site was characterized by a minor depth of the pocket if compared with the nongrafted site, with no clinical/radiographic signs of complications.

Autogenous Dentin Graft in Bone Defects after Lower Third Molar Extraction: A Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

Various biomaterials are currently used for bone regeneration, with autogenous bone being considered the gold standard material because of its osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive properties. In recent years, the use of autogenous dentin as a graft material has been described. This split-mouth clinical trial assesses the efficacy of autogenous dentin for the regeneration of periodontal defects caused by bone loss associated with impacted lower third molar extraction. Fifteen patients underwent bilateral extraction surgery (30 third molars) using dentin as a graft material on the test side, and leaving the control side to heal spontaneously, comparing the evolution of the defects by evaluating probing depth at three and six months post-operatively. Bone density and alveolar bone crest maintenance were also evaluated six months after surgery, and pain, inflammation, mouth opening capacity on the second and seventh days after surgery. Probing depth, radiographic bone density, and alveolar bone crest maintenance showed significant differences between the test and control sides. Autogenous dentin was found to be an effective biomaterial for bone regeneration after impacted lower third molar extraction.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is performed in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an review originally published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012 and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 May 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 May 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov)and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. .

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with no restriction on length of follow-up, comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We also considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently and in duplicate conducted the risk of bias assessments. When information was unclear, we contacted the study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes the same two studies that were identified in our previous version of the review: one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom, and one prospective cohort study, which was conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low- to very low-certainty evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures. One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effects of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth. One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch. The included studies did not measure any of our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed or retained. Although retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is very low certainty. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the current lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision-making with people who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain these teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

The extraction of first, second or third permanent molar teeth and its effect on the dentofacial complex

The extraction of permanent molar teeth was first introduced in 1976 as a substitution for premolar extraction in cases with mild crowding. Since then, a number of studies have investigated the effect of permanent molar extraction on dentofacial harmony. Undertaking the procedure of molar extraction is most commonly recommended in response to factors such as: gross caries, large restorations and root-filled teeth, along with its application in the management of anterior open bite and reduction in crowding in facial regions. It has been indicated, however, that before undertaking the extraction of molar teeth it is important to investigate the potential influence of the procedure on other molars, with particular consideration of their eruption path. This is due to the doubt as to the effect of the exact molar teeth extraction and their consequences. In light of this, This review was undertaken to investigate and compare the effect of first, second and the third molar teeth extraction and their subsequent dentofacial complex changes.

Effect of Asymptomatic Visible Third Molars on Periodontal Health of Adjacent Second Molars: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

Evidence that asymptomatic third molars (M3s) negatively affect their adjacent second molars (A-M2s) is limited. The present study evaluated the association between visible M3s (V-M3s) of various clinical status with the periodontal pathologic features of their A-M2s.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects with at least 1 quadrant having intact first and second molars, either with V-M3s and symptom free or without adjacent V-M3s, were enrolled in the present cross-sectional investigation. Periodontal parameters, including plaque index (PLI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), and at least 1 site with a PPD of 5 mm or more (PPD5+), obtained from M2s were analyzed according to the presence or absence of V-M3s or the status of the M3s. The χ² test or t test was used to compare the mean PLI, PPD, BOP percentage, and PPD5+ percentage. The association of PPD5+ with V-M3 status was assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model (quadrant-based analysis), and variances were adjusted for clustered observations within subjects.

RESULTS

In total, 572 subjects were enrolled in the study, and 423 had at least 1 V-M3. At the in-quadrant level, the presence of a V-M3 significantly increased M2 pathologic parameters, including PLI, PPD, BOP, and PPD5+. When analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model, impacted M3s and normally erupted M3s significantly elevated the risk of PPD5+ on their A-M2s (odds ratio 3.20 and 1.67, respectively). Other factors associated with an increased odds of PPD5+ were mandibular region and older age. Finally, the patient-matched comparison showed that the percentage of BOP and PPD5+ on M2s increased when V-M3s were present.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of their status, the presence of V-M3s is a risk factor for the development of periodontal pathologic features in their A-M2s. Although the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic V-M3s remains controversial, medical decisions should be made as early as possible, because, ideally, extraction should be performed before symptom onset.

Association between the eruption of the third molar and caries and periodontitis distal to the second molars in elderly patients

The objective of this study was to verify whether caries and periodontal diseases, when present on the distal surface of the second molars (M2s), are associated with the eruption of the third molars (M3s). In this split-mouth study, we evaluated 70 elderly patients with unilateral maxillary or mandibular M3s who presented to the outpatient clinics of two hospitals. Patients underwent comprehensive oral examinations and radiographical measurements, and we assessed the outcomes of periodontal disease and caries. Periodontal measurements included plaque index, bleeding on probing, and periodontal probing pocket depth (PD). Moreover, caries were assessed through visual-tactile examination and radiography. We performed the χ² test to determine factors associated with M3 and non-M3 outcomes. Eighty-one unilateral erupted M3s were observed in the study patients. Both the distobuccal region (p<0.0001) and the distolingual region (p=0.006) had a higher PD on the nonextraction side than the extraction side, and the caries rate was significantly higher on the nonextraction side than on the extraction side (p <0.0001 on M2 with caries and p=0.003 on M2 with distal caries). M3 eruption, at the same or different occlusal plane levels of M2, is a risk factor for periodontal diseases and caries in M2s in elderly patients. M3s may continue to negatively impact dental health well into later life.

Effect of flap design on periodontal healing after impacted third molar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The extraction of an impacted third molar violates the surrounding soft and bony tissues. The surgeon's access to the tooth, for which there are various surgical approaches, has an important impact on the periodontium of the adjacent second molar. The aim of this review was to analyze the relationships between the different flap techniques and postoperative periodontal outcomes for the mandibular second molars (LM2) adjacent to the impacted mandibular third molars (LM3). An electronic search of MEDLINE and other databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials fulfilling the eligibility criteria. To assess the impact of flap design on the periodontal condition, the weighted mean difference of the probing depth reduction (WDPDR) and the weighted mean difference of the clinical attachment level gain (WDCAG) at the distal surface of LM2 were used as the primary outcomes. The results showed that, overall, the different flap techniques had no significant impact on the probing depth reduction (WDPDR -0.14mm, 95% confidence interval -0.44 to 0.17), or on the clinical attachment level gain (WDCAG 0.05mm, 95% confidence interval -0.84 to 0.94). However, a subgroup analysis revealed that the Szmyd and paramarginal flap designs may be the most effective in reducing the probing depth in impacted LM3 extraction, and the envelope flap may be the least effective.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is carried out in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an existing review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 May 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies to 24 May 2016. We imposed no restrictions on language or date of publication in our search of electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no restriction on length of follow-up, if available. We considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently conducted risk of bias assessments in duplicate. When information was unclear, we contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes two studies. The previous review included one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom; our new search for this update identified one prospective cohort study conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low to very low quality evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures.One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effect of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low quality evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth.One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch.The included studies did not measure our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed. Although asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is of very low quality. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision making with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

Surgical removal of third molars and periodontal tissues of adjacent second molars

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mandibular third-molar (M3) removal on periodontal health of adjacent second molars (M2). Probing pocket depths (PPD) and probing attachment levels (PAL) have been described for primary outcome. As cofactors involved, gender, complications, two suture materials and two types of impaction were chosen as secondary outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-eight patients (49 female; mean age: 16.0 ± 2.0 years) with 78 asymptomatic impacted mandibular M3 were included in this study. Plaque and gingival indices, PPD and PAL were recorded prior and 6 months after surgery. Impacted teeth were classified as either fully impacted (completely within in the bone) or submucosal (fully covered by oral mucosa).

RESULTS

Average baseline PPD was reduced from 3.3 mm to 2.6 mm after 6 months (p < 0.05). Average PAL was reduced from 3.0 to 2.5 mm (p < 0.05). Preoperative PPD ≥ 4 mm at the distolingual and distobuccal sites was positively correlated with clinical improvement (PPD: p < 0.05; PAL: p < 0.05). The impaction class was also identified as positive cofactor for PPD (p = 0.039), but not for PAL.

CONCLUSIONS

Young patients may benefit from an early removal of mandibular M3, especially in the presence of certain cofactors.

Radiological infrabony defects after impacted mandibular third molar extractions in young adults

PURPOSE

To estimate the prevalence of infrabony defects and their healing at the distal aspect of mandibular second molars (M2s) after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars (M3s).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective clinical study included 22 young healthy patients (21.03 ± 4.51 yr old). Thirty-seven surgical extractions of high-risk periodontal and mesioangular impacted M3s in close contact with adjacent M2s were performed. Radiographic bone height (RBH), radiographic infrabony defects (RIDs), and bone loss (BL) were recorded at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. RBH and RIDs were measured from the tip of a periodontal gauge to the root apex and to the cementoenamel junction of the M2, respectively; BL was calculated by dividing the length of the M2 root into thirds and categorized as slight, moderate, or severe.

RESULTS

Only 26 extracted teeth were included in all radiographic assessments. Mean RID size at baseline was 4.54 ± 1.87 mm. At 12 months, an average recovery of 2.80 ± 2.36 mm (P < .001) was recorded, for a mean RID size of 1.78 ± 1.65 mm. Statistically significant differences in RBH and RIDs were found at all assessments (P < .05). Improved bone healing was registered during the postoperative period, with higher values during the first 3 months (1.3 mm; P < .01). Most RIDs of at least 4 mm associated with moderate or slight BL decreased to no larger than 3 mm without BL. For moderate BL, the bone gain pattern was gradual and continuous, whereas for slight BL, the pattern was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

In young healthy patients, a high-risk periodontal impacted M3 leads to an RID of at least 4 mm associated with slight or moderate BL at the distal aspect of the M2, which decreases to no larger than 3 mm 12 months after surgery. Bone healing is clinically and statistically significant at 12 months, with the most notable changes at the first 3-month follow-up.

Mandibular second molar periodontal healing after impacted third molar extraction in young adults

PURPOSE

To estimate the prevalence of preoperative periodontal defects and analyze 12-month spontaneous healing on the distal aspect of the mandibular second molar (M2) after impacted mandibular third molar (M3) extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective clinical study was conducted in 25 healthy young patients (21.03 ± 4.38 yr old) with 40 extractions of higher-risk periodontal impacted M3s. Plaque and gingival indexes, recession, bleeding on probing, probing depth (PD), and attachment level were recorded before surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery at 5 sites on the distal aspect of the M2.

RESULTS

The initial mean PD was 5.70 ± 3.80 mm, with the deepest mean PD at the lingual side. At 12 months, a mean PD average of 3.77 ± 2.86 mm was recorded, with a total average recovery of 1.93 ± 2.46 mm (P < .001), that was higher at 3 months (-1.62 mm, P < .001). The PD and attachment level improvements were statistically significant (P < .001) and nearly clinically significant from baseline to 12-month follow-up and from the buccal to the lingual side of the distal aspect of the M2.

CONCLUSIONS

Impacted M3s adjacent to M2s lead to periodontal defects that are deepest at the lingual side and almost recover at 12 months after extraction. The first 3 months is considered the cutoff for periodontal healing. Young adults with high-risk periodontal M3 impactions may benefit from early extraction, which increases spontaneous periodontal healing.