ArticleBMC oral health2024
Prophylactic third molar removal: are oral surgeons and orthodontists aligned in preventive approaches?
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. 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.
- Articaine provides a faster onset and longer duration of analgesia at lower supplemental injections compared to mepivacaine in third molar extractions.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Trial
- Covered Socket Residuum (CSR) in Former Third Molar Sockets Despite Platelet-Rich Fibrin: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth Clinical Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reliability of Large Language Model-Based Chatbots Versus Clinicians as Sources of Information on Orthodontics: A Comparative Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Inferior Alveolar Nerve Impairment Following Third-Molar Extraction: Management of Complications and Medicolegal Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a general consensus among dental professionals regarding the extraction of impacted third molars in the presence of clinical symptoms. However, there is less agreement on the management of asymptomatic third molars. The objective of this study is to compare the perspectives of oral surgeons and orthodontists regarding the indications for the extraction of asymptomatic third molars. It is possible that healthcare professionals from different specialties may approach the extraction of these teeth in different ways.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a web-based questionnaire has been employed to collect data by inquiring about the reasons why participants prefer the extraction of asymptomatic third molars. Descriptive statistics were employed to evaluate the data obtained. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsProphylactic extraction of partially impacted molars was more favored among the participants (P < 0.05). The orthodontists preferred prophylactic extraction due to the risk of late anterior dental crowding (LADC); however, the oral surgeons preferred pre-pregnancy extractions (P < 0.05). The extraction decision for partial impaction was higher in females when the risk of distal caries was considered. For fully impacted ones, it was higher in males when the risk of caries and pericoronitis were considered (P < 0.05).
conclusionsOrthodontists preferred extraction because of the risk of LADC and caries, while oral surgeons focused on preventing pericoronitis, pathology, focal infection, and symptoms during pregnancy. This divergence between the participants may inform the guidelines for prophylactic management of third molars. These findings may be pertinent in gender medicine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study has been enlightening for departments to consult each other before the extraction of a patient's asymptomatic third molar.
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.