Dataset Information

The wisdom behind the third molars removal: A prospective study of 106 cases.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This paper aims to evaluate the decision-making of wisdom teeth extractions (M3s extraction) and the epidemiological profile in the targeted population.

Materials and method

This was a prospective analysis study of 106 patients at our hospital august 20, 1953 specialist hospital, which is a referral center between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2021. The patients are divided into 2 groups according decision-making of wisdom teeth removal based on scientific evidence if it's right or wrong.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding sex (P = 0.478), educational level (P = 0.718), or working status (P = 0.606). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding general co-morbidity (P = 1.00) or oral history (P = 0.28). The mean age of the sample was 32.12 years (SD = 11.337 years, range = 17-70 years, median = 30 -years). We reported that only 28% of the third molars were surgically extracted. We included in Group (I), 81 patients who were treated for third molars removal which the decision-making was justified. In Group (II), 25 patients were treated for third molars removal which the decision-making was unjustified. Group (I) comprised 30 men and 51 women with a mean age of 30 years. Group (II) comprised 7 men and 18 women with a mean age of 27 years. The assessment of surgical outcomes (operating time, blood loss, hospital stay) showed no difference between groups.

Discussion

Monitoring asymptomatic wisdom teeth appears to be an appropriate strategy. Regarding retention versus prophylactic extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth, decision-making should be based on the best evidence combined with clinical experience.76.4% had a reason for extraction that was justified. The reasons why extraction of the wisdom tooth was not justified in our study population was either: extraction for prophylaxis or in the case of asymptomatic non-pathological third molars; without scientific evidence.

Conclusion

This subject, which is perpetually debated, requires updating dental health authorities by evaluating new conservative procedures.

SUBMITTER: Ouassime K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8346357 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare the risks and benefits of germectomy and delayed removal of third molars and develop a patient management algorithm for second molar eruption in syndrome/incompliant patients. A literature search was performed in the following databases; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Last search was done on July 2nd, 2018 including articles published from the last 18 years. The search aimed to identify all relevant studies written in English language. Gray literature was excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated with specific predetermined criteria. This systematic literature review was reported according to the PRISMA-P statement and was registered in the PROSPERO database with the following protocol ID: 104261. Literature search war performed on July 2018 and updated on February 2019. A total of 1610 articles were screened. After abstract screening and discarding duplicates, 86 full-text articles were obtained and subjected to additional evaluation. Four articles were included in the review. Three studies were considered as having a medium risk of bias and one was assessed as at high risk. Due to the heterogeneity of presenting results and a very low number of included studies a quantitative analysis was not possible. Only qualitative analysis was made. Considering the limited number of studies included and the level of risk of bias there is no sufficient evidence to state the benefits of preventive removal of impacted third molars, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene due to intellectual disability. Early germectomy represents an elective approach of pathologic alteration of tooth germ; orthodontic issues meet appropriate indication for a delayed removal. Given the best evidence-based information regarding patients' medical condition, we highlight the need to provide an ethical-based comprehensive approach in the diagnostic workflow and the assessment of treatment outcome.

Project description:Considering the adverse effects of nonimpacted third molars (N-M3s) on the periodontal health of adjacent second molars (M2s), the removal of N-M3s may be beneficial to the periodontal health of their neighbors. This study aimed to investigate the clinical, immunological, and microbiological changes of the periodontal condition around M2s following removal of neighboring N-M3s across a 6-month period. Subjects with at least one quadrant containing an intact first molar (M1), M2, and N-M3 were screened and those who met the inclusion criteria and decided to receive N-M3 extraction were recruited in the following investigation. M2 periodontal condition was interrogated before M3 extraction (baseline) and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Improvements in clinical periodontal indexes of M2s in response to their adjacent N-M3 removal, along with changes in inflammatory biomarkers among gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and the composition of subgingival plaque collected from the distal sites of the M2s of the targeted quadrant were parallelly analyzed. Complete data of 26 tooth extraction patients across the follow-up period were successfully obtained and subsequently applied for statistical analysis. Compared to the baseline, the periodontal condition of M2s was significantly changed 6 months after N-M3 removal; specifically, the probing depth of M2s significantly reduced (P < 0.001), the matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 concentration involved in GCF significantly decreased (P = 0.025), and the abundance of the pathogenic genera unidentified Prevotellaceae and Streptococcus significantly decreased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). We concluded that N-M3 removal was associated with superior clinical indexes, decreased GCF inflammatory biomarkers, and reduced pathogenic microbiome distribution within the subgingival plaque. Although the retention or removal of N-M3s continues to be controversial, our findings provide additional evidence that medical decisions should be made as early as possible or at least before the neighboring teeth are irretrievably damaged.