ArticleBritish dental journal2019
An evaluation of referrals requesting third molar tooth removal: clinical diagnosis and treatment outcome.
Article in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Indications of Surgical Extraction of Impacted Lower Third Molar in the Oral Surgery Clinic, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- The Co-Occurrence of Temporomandibular Disorders in Patients Diagnosed with Tinnitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Poor antibiotic guardianship.British dental journal · 2019Article
- Architectural and Ultrastructural Variations of Human Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin.Journal of microscopy and ultrastructureArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction To determine the reasons why patients are referred requesting removal of third molar teeth.Method Prospective evaluation of referrals requesting removal of third molar teeth only. Following review of symptoms, clinical, and if appropriate, radiographic findings, a diagnosis according to pre-defined criteria was made, and verified by a senior member of staff.Results 662 individual referrals were received requesting removal of 1,117 individual third molar teeth, of which 73% were for mandibular teeth. A total of 195 teeth (17.6%) were not removed as there was no disease process or insufficient symptoms. In 124 cases (11.1%) a diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders was made with no dental surgery being required. Other reasons for patients not proceeding to surgery were: no symptoms or sign of disease; symptoms were from an adjacent tooth; only single episode of pericoronitis; late incisor crowding; and cervical sensitivity.Conclusion While most patients referred did proceed to have removal of third molar teeth, a significant proportion had symptoms related to chronic orofacial pain that would not have been influenced by removal of third molar teeth. The overall incidence of temporomandibular disorders within the patient sample, either as a primary, secondary or tertiary diagnosis was 18.7%.
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.