Arunesh Tiwari1, Jeevan Lata2, Madan Mishra3. 1. Lecturer, Department of Dentistry, Government Medical College, Jalaun (Orai), Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College, Amritsar, Punjab, India. 3. Reader, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sardar Patel Postgraduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Raebareli Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
AIMS: This study was set out to evaluate the relationship between the presence and absence of unerupted mandibular third molar and fracture of mandibular angle/condyle, and to analyse if prophylactic removal of symptom-free unerupted mandibular third molar is beneficial. METHODS: Hundred patients of mandible fracture were selected randomly irrespective of age, sex, caste, creed and socio-economic status. Data were collected from the patients on the basis of history, clinical examination and radiographs for the following information: age, sex, aetiology of fracture, presence and status of the mandibular third molar and location of mandible fracture. RESULTS: In group A (partially/completely unerupted mandibular 3rd molar), the incidence of angle and condylar fracture was 44.44% and 13.33%, respectively, whereas in group B (fully erupted/missing mandibular third molar), the incidence of angle fracture was 14.45% and the incidence of condylar fractures was 31.77%. CONCLUSION: Practice of prophylactic removal of mandibular third molar and resultant strengthening of angle region should be reconsidered, as it increases the risk of fracture at condylar region which is difficult to treat and associated with more morbidity.
AIMS: This study was set out to evaluate the relationship between the presence and absence of unerupted mandibular third molar and fracture of mandibular angle/condyle, and to analyse if prophylactic removal of symptom-free unerupted mandibular third molar is beneficial. METHODS: Hundred patients of mandible fracture were selected randomly irrespective of age, sex, caste, creed and socio-economic status. Data were collected from the patients on the basis of history, clinical examination and radiographs for the following information: age, sex, aetiology of fracture, presence and status of the mandibular third molar and location of mandible fracture. RESULTS: In group A (partially/completely unerupted mandibular 3rd molar), the incidence of angle and condylar fracture was 44.44% and 13.33%, respectively, whereas in group B (fully erupted/missing mandibular third molar), the incidence of angle fracture was 14.45% and the incidence of condylar fractures was 31.77%. CONCLUSION: Practice of prophylactic removal of mandibular third molar and resultant strengthening of angle region should be reconsidered, as it increases the risk of fracture at condylar region which is difficult to treat and associated with more morbidity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Angle fracture; Condylar fracture; Mandibular third molar
Authors: Hesham Mohammed Al-Sharani; Zhang Bin; Mubarak Ahmed Mashrah; Endi Lanza Galvão; Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi; Maged Ali Al-Aroomi; Karim Ahmed Sakran; Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 4.379