Intra-observer reliability regarding removal of asymptomatic third molars

Are third molars associated with orofacial pain? Findings from the SHIP study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between third molars and orofacial pain. We hypothesized that impacted third molars are a cause of orofacial pain.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance images of 1808 participants from two population-based cohorts from Northeastern Germany were analysed to define the status of third molars according to the Pell and Gregory classification. A self-reported questionnaire and a clinical dental examination were used to detect chronic and acute complaints of orofacial pain, masticatory muscle pain, migraine and other types of headache. Logistic regression models were used to analyse the associations between third molar status and orofacial pain.

RESULTS

Individuals with impacted third molars in the maxilla had a higher chance of chronic orofacial pain than those with erupted third molars (odds ratio 2.19; 95% CI 1.19-4.02). No such association was detected for third molars in the lower jaw. Third molars were not associated with masticatory muscle pain, migraine or other types of headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Impacted maxillary third molars might be a cause of chronic orofacial pain. Thus, physicians should consider the eruption/impaction status of third molars in their decision-making process when treating patients who complain of orofacial pain.

How to Manage Impacted Third Molars: Germectomy or Delayed Removal? A Systematic Literature Review

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare the risks and benefits of germectomy and delayed removal of third molars and develop a patient management algorithm for second molar eruption in syndrome/incompliant patients. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed in the following databases; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Last search was done on July 2nd, 2018 including articles published from the last 18 years. The search aimed to identify all relevant studies written in English language. Gray literature was excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated with specific predetermined criteria. This systematic literature review was reported according to the PRISMA-P statement and was registered in the PROSPERO database with the following protocol ID: 104261. Results: Literature search war performed on July 2018 and updated on February 2019. A total of 1610 articles were screened. After abstract screening and discarding duplicates, 86 full-text articles were obtained and subjected to additional evaluation. Four articles were included in the review. Three studies were considered as having a medium risk of bias and one was assessed as at high risk. Due to the heterogeneity of presenting results and a very low number of included studies a quantitative analysis was not possible. Only qualitative analysis was made. Considering the limited number of studies included and the level of risk of bias there is no sufficient evidence to state the benefits of preventive removal of impacted third molars, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene due to intellectual disability. Early germectomy represents an elective approach of pathologic alteration of tooth germ; orthodontic issues meet appropriate indication for a delayed removal. Conclusions: Given the best evidence-based information regarding patients’ medical condition, we highlight the need to provide an ethical-based comprehensive approach in the diagnostic workflow and the assessment of treatment outcome.

Factors influencing the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted lower third molars

The aim of this study was to analyse factors indicating prophylactic removal of impacted lower third molars, and how they, and possibly surgeon experience, influence the therapeutic decision-making process. A descriptive observational study was made of 40 asymptomatic impacted lower third molars. Orthopantomographs were scanned and presented to four professionals with different degrees of surgical experience. The examiners received information relating to patient age and sex, molar inclination and degree of impaction, and expressed their opinion on the necessity for teeth removal. There was a statistically significant relationship between examiner decision and the estimated probability of pathology if the molars were not removed (P<0.05). The degree of influence on the decision to extract was in decreasing order: estimated risk of complications, inclination of molar, age, degree of impaction and patient sex. No statistically significant differences (P>0.05) were observed between residents and trainers in terms of the decision to remove or estimated risk of complications. The management approach adopted by oral surgeons regarding the removal of asymptomatic impacted lower third molars depends upon the perceived risk of complications if such teeth are not removed, other factors being secondary. The surgical experience of the professional does not seem to influence treatment decision.

A controlled trial of three referral methods for patients with third molars

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of three primary to secondary care referral strategies.

METHOD

Thirty two primary care dental practitioners (GDPs) were randomly allocated one of three referral strategies: current practice (control strategy); a neural network embedded within a computer program and a paper-based clinical algorithm. One hundred and seven patients were assessed for lower third molar treatment: 47, 30 and 30 in each group, respectively. Clinical details were assessed by a panel of experts against a gold standard for third molar removal (the National Institutes of Health criteria). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each strategy.

RESULTS

The referral decisions made by the GDPs in the control group displayed greater accuracy and sensitivity but poorer specificity (0.83; 0.97; 0.22) compared with the neural network (0.67; 0.56; 0.79) and clinical algorithm (0.73; 0.56; 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that incorporation of the clinical algorithm into primary care was the most appropriate option. The computer neural network performed less well than either current practice or the clinical algorithm.