ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
The wisdom behind the third molars removal: A prospective study of 106 cases.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reduce lingual nerve injuries during mandibular third molar surgery? A scoping review.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Knowledge and Attitude Among the Saudi Dentists Towards Coronectomy of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis paper aims to evaluate the decision-making of wisdom teeth extractions (M3s extraction) and the epidemiological profile in the targeted population. MATERIALS AND
methodThis 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.
resultsThere 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.
conclusionThis subject, which is perpetually debated, requires updating dental health authorities by evaluating new conservative procedures.
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.