Saving the 2(nd) Molar from the 3(rd) Is it Really the Guilt of the Tilt?

Historical aspects about third molar removal versus retention and distal surface caries in the second mandibular molar adjacent to impacted third molars

This paper provides an insight into the historical recommendations regarding removal of mandibular third molars, as set out by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and the National Institutes of Health in the USA, as well as regional guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the controversy that surrounds surgical removal of third molars. The influences of third molar management as it developed in the UK, the historical economic evaluations, and the available evidence base on third-molar removal versus retention are described. This article seeks to address the growing concerns regarding the increasing frequency of distal surface caries (DSC) in mandibular second molar teeth when the decay is associated with asymptomatic, partially erupted, mandibular third molars, especially when they are mesially or horizontally impacted. Lastly, we illustrate radiographs of patients affected by DSC and how guidance that has been issued by a guideline institution regarding third molar surgery, even though it is based on insufficient evidence, is perceived as a strictly compulsory clinical strategy, and has been used in clinical practice in the UK for more than 20 years.

A systematic review of second molar distal surface caries incidence in the context of third molar absence and emergence

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to gain a greater insight into the incidence rates of distal surface caries (DSC) on second permanent molars.Data sources A literature search using the Cochrane Library, Lilacs, Embase and Medline via Ovid retrieved English and non-English language articles from inception to June 2016. The electronic searches were supplemented with reference searching and citation tracking. Reviewers independently and in duplicate performed data extraction and completed structured quality assessments using a validated risk of bias tool for observational studies and categorised the summary scores.Data selection The search yielded 81 records and, after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, two incidence studies were included in this systematic review.Data extraction The DSC incidence was reported in one study as relative risk (RR = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.55 to 4.14) adjacent to erupted, (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.11 to 6.04) soft tissue impacted and (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.72) bony impacted third molars in comparison to when the third molar was absent with a 25-year follow-up. The second study reported a DSC incidence of 100 surface-years (1% of all sites) with an 18-month follow-up period.Conclusions Both cohort studies indicated that DSC incidence was higher when third molars were erupted in the intermediate term, but greater over the long term for an ageing male population. However, further high-quality research is required to improve the accuracy of these findings.

Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the presence of mandibular third molars and the occurrence of carious lesions in the distal aspect of the mandibular second molar.

Material and Methods

A retrospective cohort study comprising 327 lower third molars extracted in the Oral Surgery and Implantology Master’s Degree program of the School of Dentistry of the University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) was carried out. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was made. The diagnosis of caries in the second molar and the position of the mandibular third molar were evaluated through panoramic radiographies.

Results

The sample included 203 patients, 94 males (46.3%) and 109 females (53.7%), with a mean age of 26,8 years and 327 lower third molars. The prevalence of second molar distal caries was 25.4% (95% CI= 20.6% to 30.2%). This pathology was significantly more frequent when the third molar was in a horizontal position (27.7%), when the contact point was at (45,8%) or below (47.0%) the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), and when the distal CEJ of the mandibular second molar and the mesial CEJ of the third molar was 7 to 12 mm apart.

Conclusions

Horizontal lower third molars with contact points at or below the CEJ are more likely to produce distal caries in the mandibular second molars. Due to the high prevalence of this pathology (20.6% to 30.2%), a prophylactic removal of lower third molars with the above-mentioned features might be advisable.

Key words:Second molar, caries, third molar, prophylactic removal.