Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32365677›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Quality of Life of Patients with Mandibular Third Molars and Mild Pericoronitis. A Comparison between Two Different Treatments: Extraction or Periodontal Approach.

P C Passarelli, M A Lopez, V Desantis, G B Piccirillo, E Rella, V Giovannini, A Speranza, M De Leonardis, P F Manicone, M Casale and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors.

P C PassarelliDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
M A LopezUnit of Otolaryngology, University Campus Bio-Medico, 00128 Rome, Italy.
V DesantisDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
G B PiccirilloDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
E RellaDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
V GiovanniniDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
A SperanzaDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
M De LeonardisDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
P F ManiconeDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.
M CasaleUnit of Otolaryngology, University Campus Bio-Medico, 00128 Rome, Italy.
A D'AddonaDepartment of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation, 00168 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background

methodsWe evaluated 82 patients diagnosed with pericoronitis that occurred at the third molar site. In total, 41 of them received a periodontal treatment and 41 were treated by extraction. The quality of life (QoL) of the patients was assessed by using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) index.

resultsA total of 82 patients were included in the study and were followed up for 6 months. Of the patients, 41 received a periodontal treatment and 41 underwent surgical extraction. At the baseline, the OHIP-14 scores of the surgical group were higher (19.71, SD 9.90) than the periodontal group (14.41, SD 8.71). At 1 week, there was a reduction in terms of OHIP-14 in both groups, but the periodontal group showed lower values (12.3, SD 8.11). Long-term follow-up showed a reduction of the OHIP-14 values, with a difference in favor of the surgical group (0.10, SD 0.45). However, there was a reduction in OHIP-14 scores in both groups.

conclusionAlthough the periodontal treatment offered a rapid improvement in terms of quality of life during the first week after the treatment, after 1 month and 6 months, the extraction of the mandibular third molar extraction remained the best treatment, removing the occurrence of re-inflammation of the site.

Indexed as

mandibular third molaroral surgeryquality of lifetooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID32365677
PMCPMC7277210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.