OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative risk of mandibular angle fractures among people with a lower third molar compared with those without a lower third molar. METHODS: Data for a case-control meta-analysis were obtained by performing a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify suitable observational studies. To be included, studies had to present data on patients with mandibular fractures, incorporate cross-classified information about the presence of a lower third molar and indicate whether the fracture was a mandibular angle fracture on the ipsilateral side. RESULTS: Six studies, involving 3,002 patients with mandibular fractures, met the inclusion criteria. Crude relative risk estimates for an angle fracture, comparing patients with a third molar with those without, ranged from 1.2 to 12.7. There was evidence of heterogeneity across the 6 studies (p = 0.001), but when 2 studies with less methodologic rigour were excluded, a test of homogeneity was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.22). The estimated relative risk across the remaining 4 studies was 2.4 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a lower third molar may double the risk of an angle fracture of the mandible. This could have a bearing on any clinical decision on whether to extract the molar.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative risk of mandibular angle fractures among people with a lower third molar compared with those without a lower third molar. METHODS: Data for a case-control meta-analysis were obtained by performing a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify suitable observational studies. To be included, studies had to present data on patients with mandibular fractures, incorporate cross-classified information about the presence of a lower third molar and indicate whether the fracture was a mandibular angle fracture on the ipsilateral side. RESULTS: Six studies, involving 3,002 patients with mandibular fractures, met the inclusion criteria. Crude relative risk estimates for an angle fracture, comparing patients with a third molar with those without, ranged from 1.2 to 12.7. There was evidence of heterogeneity across the 6 studies (p = 0.001), but when 2 studies with less methodologic rigour were excluded, a test of homogeneity was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.22). The estimated relative risk across the remaining 4 studies was 2.4 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a lower third molar may double the risk of an angle fracture of the mandible. This could have a bearing on any clinical decision on whether to extract the molar.