Literature DB >> 22955790

The effects of NICE guidelines on the management of third molar teeth.

L W McArdle1, T Renton.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Third molar surgery (TMS) is probably one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures undertaken in the NHS. In 2000, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) introduced guidelines relating to TMS. These recommended against the prophylactic removal of third molars and listed specific clinical indications for surgery. The impact of these guidelines has not been fully evaluated and this research hopes to focus the effect of these guidelines over the last ten years.
METHODS: Using data obtained from a variety of NHS databases such as HES (Eng & Wales), the NHSBSA and data from NHS Scotland, we looked at the age range of patients requiring third molar removal and the number of patients having third molars removed in both primary and secondary care environments from 1989 to 2009. In addition we looked at the clinical indications for TMS activity in secondary care.
FINDINGS: The mean age of patients increased from 25 years in 2000 to 32 years in 2010, with the modal (most common) age increasing from 26 to 29 years. After the introduction of clinical guidelines the number of patients requiring third molar removal in secondary care dropped by over 30%, however, since 2003 the number of patients has risen by 97%. There is also a significant increase in caries as an indication for third molar removal.
CONCLUSIONS: More patients are requiring third molar removal with an increasing number of patients having caries related to their third molars. Patients are, on average, older confirming that the removal of third molars is shifting from a young adult population group to an older adult population group. NICE guidelines did appear to have contributed to a fall in the volume of third molars removed within the NHS post 2000. However, concluding that this reduction demonstrates the success of NICE's guidance would be a premature assumption. The number of patients now requiring third molar removal is comparable to that of the mid 1990s. NICE has influenced the management of patients with third molars but this has not resulted in any reduction in the number of patients requiring third molar removal. Coding and data collection for third molars is not uniform, leading to potential misrepresentation of data. This perhaps raises the issue that an improved universal coding system is required for the NHS and that the NICE guidelines need review.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22955790     DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.780

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Dent J        ISSN: 0007-0610            Impact factor:   1.626


  24 in total

Review 1.  Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, a Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  E Bailey; H Worthington; P Coulthard
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  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

3.  Economic and health implications of routine CBCT examination before surgical removal of the mandibular third molar in the Danish population.

Authors:  L B Petersen; K R Olsen; L H Matzen; M Vaeth; A Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Juliet Hounsome; Gerlinde Pilkington; James Mahon; Angela Boland; Sophie Beale; Eleanor Kotas; Tara Renton; Rumona Dickson
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.014

5.  The rise and fall of malpractice payments in the US.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 1.626

6.  Coronectomies: assessment and treatment planning.

Authors:  S Bhola; A Pellatt
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 1.626

7.  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

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Diseases associated with mandibular third molar teeth.

Authors:  L W McArdle; M Andiappan; I Khan; J Jones; F McDonald
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 1.626

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.