ArticleDentistry journal2024
Concordance Analysis of Lower Third Molar Surgery Classifications: A Comparative Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Ringer's Lactate versus normal saline irrigation on postoperative morbidity after surgical removal of mandibular impacted third molars: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of the usefulness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in mandibular third molar surgery with 3D facial swelling analysis: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Head & face medicine · 2025Trial
- A machine learning-based predictive model for mandibular third molar extraction difficulty: incorporating multimodal features and SHAP analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of odontogenic lesions on root development in impacted teeth: a cohort study.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Automated pipeline for linear and volumetric assessment of facial swelling after third molar surgery.BMC oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high frequency and complexity of mandibular third molar (M3M) surgery have led several authors to the development of classification systems for better evaluation and management in oral surgery. This study compared the classifications of Juodzabalys and Daugela et al. (JD), Sammartino et al., Chang et al., Jhamb et al., Maglione et al., and Nemsi et al. to understand the concordance between the scores of M3M surgery. Two types of analysis were conducted: the relationship between the M3M and the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), and the overall difficulty score based on the tooth's angulation and its spatial position with the adjacent structure. The analysis of the classifications on the relationship between M3M and IAN resulted in a concordance of 26.1%. In the pairwise comparisons, the classifications of Nemsi et al. and Jhamb et al. showed the highest concordance of 59.5%. Analyzing the total scores difficulty, the JD et al., Chang et al., and Sammartino et al. classifications demonstrated a concordance level of 25.5%. A pairwise assessment revealed a higher concordance degree between the classifications of Sammartino et al. and Chang et al. (57.4%). The results highlight the limits in establishing a comprehensive and objective classification for the surgical difficulty of M3M, possibly attributed to variations in the methodology for computing total scores. An objective, automated, and non-operator-dependent classification method for assessing the surgical difficulty of M3M is still needed.
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.