ArticleInternational dental journal2017
Assessment of the referral system for surgical removal of third molars at the Dental Faculty, King Saud University.
Article in International dental journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Management and Evaluation of Impacted Wisdom Teeth in a Dental Teaching Hospital.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- A Novel assessment tool monitoring the level of patient anxiety during third molar surgery procedure.Heliyon · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is compelling evidence that prophylactic extraction of third molars is a health problem that needs to be addressed. In particular, the vast amount of evidence demonstrating complications after removal of third molars, rather than supporting the necessity of removal or the negative effects of retention, raise this concern.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the referral system for third molar extraction at our institution by assessing patient opinions and the experience of the oral surgeons and the referring dentists. The main outcome measures of concern were the reasons for third molar extraction, patient awareness about the surgery and the comorbidities that may accompany the surgery.
methodsPilot cross-sectional survey questionnaires were distributed at the Dental Faculty Clinic at King Saud University, from 15 March 2015 to 30 June 2016 by the staff in charge of the patient waiting area, oral surgery clinic, primary care clinic and specialist clinic.
resultsOf 400 potential respondents, 226 completed the survey (response rate: 54%). Of these patients, 91% knew why they had been referred to the oral surgery department, but 73.5% did not understand the surgical extraction procedure or its complications. In total, 45.2% of the patients referred had no signs or symptoms, and 36% were referred for prophylactic reasons. In conclusion, our system needs reassessment. To combat the subjective health practice of routinely referring patients for prophylactic extraction, the role of primary care should be emphasised by implementing a system for regular patient check-ups, and public awareness should be increased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.