Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24524519›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2014

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

Joana Cunha-Cruz, Marilynn Rothen, Charles Spiekerman, Mark Drangsholt, Lyle McClellan, Greg J Huang, Northwest Practice-Based Research Collaborative in Evidence-Based Dentistry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Surgical removal of third molars in a young adult: review of indications and surgical techniques.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joana Cunha-CruzJoana Cunha-Cruz and Charles Spiekerman are with the Department of Oral Health Sciences, Marilynn Rothen is with the Regional Clinical Dental Research Center, Mark Drangsholt is with the Department of Oral Medicine, and Greg J. Huang is with the Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle. Lyle McClellan is with the Willamette Dental Group, Spokane, WA.
Marilynn Rothen
Charles Spiekerman
Mark Drangsholt
Lyle McClellan
Greg J Huang
Northwest Practice-Based Research Collaborative in Evidence-Based Dentistry

Funding

Network Chair for the Pacific Northwest DPBRNU01DE016750 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DEROUEN, TIMOTHY A · 2005 to 2011
$11.1M
Data Coordinating Center for the Pacific Northwest DPBRNU01DE016752 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LEROUX, BRIAN GILBERT · 2005 to 2011
$6.8M
NIDCR NIH HHS DE016750NIDCR NIH HHS DE016752NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016750NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe investigated general dentists' reasons for recommending removal or retention of third molars and whether patients adhered to dentists' recommendations.

methodsIn a 2-year prospective cohort study (2009-2011) in the Pacific Northwest, we followed 801 patients aged 16 to 22 years from 50 general dental practices. Generalized estimating equations logistic regressions related patient and dentist characteristics to dentists' recommendations to remove third molars and to patient adherence.

resultsGeneral dentists recommended removal of 1683 third molars from 469 (59%) participants, mainly to prevent future problems (79%) or because a third molar had an unfavorable orientation or was unlikely to erupt (57%). Dentists recommended retention and monitoring of 1244 third molars from 366 (46%) participants, because it was too early to decide (73%), eruption path was favorable (39%), or space for eruption was sufficient (26%). When dentists recommended removal, 55% of participants adhered to this recommendation during follow-up, and the main reason was availability of insurance (88%).

conclusionsGeneral dentists frequently recommended removal of third molars for reasons not related to symptoms or pathology, but rather to prevent future problems.

Indexed as

AdolescentFemaleHumansMaleMolar, ThirdNorthwestern United StatesPatient CompliancePractice Patterns, Dentists'Tooth ExtractionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24524519
PMCPMC4025689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.