Literature DB >> 22762969

What has been the United Kingdom's experience with retention of third molars?

Tara Renton1, Mustafa Al-Haboubi, Allan Pau, Jonathan Shepherd, Jennifer E Gallagher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2000, the first National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines related to third molar (M3) surgery, a commonly performed operation in the United Kingdom, were published. This followed research publications and professional guidelines in the 1990 s that advised against prophylactic surgery and provided specific therapeutic indications for M3 surgery. The aim of the present report was to summarize the available evidence on the effects of guidelines on M3 surgery within the United Kingdom.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from primary care dental services and hospital admissions in England and Wales during a 20-year period (Hospital Episode Statistics 1989/1990 to 2009/2010), and from private medical insurance companies were analyzed. The volume and, where possible, the nature of the M3 surgery activity over time were assessed together, as were the collateral effects of the guidelines, including patient age at surgery and the indications for surgery.
RESULTS: The volume of M3 removal decreased in all sectors during the 1990 s before the introduction of the NICE guidelines. During the 20-year period, the proportion of impacted M3 surgery decreased from 80% to 50% of admitted hospital cases. Furthermore, an increase occurred in the mean age for surgical admissions from 25.5 to 31.8 years. The change in age correlated with a change in the indications for M3 surgery during that period, with a reduction in "impaction," but an increase in "caries" and "pericoronitis" as etiologic factors, in accordance with the NICE guidelines.
CONCLUSION: The significant decrease in M3 surgery activity occurred before the NICE guidelines. Thus, M3 surgery has been performed at a later age, with indications for surgery increasingly in accordance with the NICE guidelines. The importance of clinical monitoring of the retained M3s is discussed.
Copyright © 2012 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22762969     DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  10 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness modelling of a 'watchful monitoring strategy' for impacted third molars vs prophylactic removal under GA: an Australian perspective.

Authors:  A A Anjrini; E Kruger; M Tennant
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 1.626

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

Authors:  Hossein Ghaeminia; Marloes El Nienhuijs; Verena Toedtling; John Perry; Marcia Tummers; Theo Jm Hoppenreijs; Wil Jm Van der Sanden; Theodorus G Mettes
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-05-04

3.  International benchmarking of hospitalisations for impacted teeth: a 10-year retrospective study from the United Kingdom, France and Australia.

Authors:  A A Anjrini; E Kruger; M Tennant
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  Distal caries of the second molar in the presence of a mandibular third molar - a prevention protocol.

Authors:  V Toedtling; P Coulthard; G Thackray
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 1.626

5.  Prevalence of missing and impacted third molars in adults aged 25 years and above.

Authors:  Yun-Hoa Jung; Bong-Hae Cho
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2013-12-12

6.  Recommendations for third molar removal: a practice-based cohort study.

Authors:  Joana Cunha-Cruz; Marilynn Rothen; Charles Spiekerman; Mark Drangsholt; Lyle McClellan; Greg J Huang
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Can narrowing of the mandibular canal on pre-operative panoramic radiography predict close anatomical contact of the mandibular canal with the mandibular third molar? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qin Liye; Zhou Zhongwei; Sun Xiaojuan; Wang Min; Liu Pingping; Cao Kun
Journal:  Oral Radiol       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  Assessment of the referral system for surgical removal of third molars at the Dental Faculty, King Saud University.

Authors:  Randa Abdul Moein Al Fotawi; Manju Roby Philip; Sangeetah Negavara Premnath
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.607

Review 9.  Visualization techniques of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN): a narrative review.

Authors:  Annelies Weckx; Jimoh Olubanwo Agbaje; Yi Sun; Reinhilde Jacobs; Constantinus Politis
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 1.246

10.  Clinical and pathologic features related to the impacted third molars in patients of different ages: A retrospective study in the Korean population.

Authors:  Ji-Youn Kim; Hyeon-Gun Jee; Hyun Chul Song; Sun-Jong Kim; Myung-Rae Kim
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 2.080

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.