ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Third molars surgical extraction awareness: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess public awareness of the surgical third molar extraction, preventive recommendations, and fear levels among individuals who underwent third molar surgical extraction (E) and those without prior experience (WE).
methodsA questionnaire survey of 584 respondents assessed demographics, knowledge of preventive recommendations, areas in which they felt a lack of information, and fear levels (1-10 point scale). Statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of p = 0.05.
resultsThe E group (313 respondents) proved to be better informed than WE (271). The lowest knowledge scores in both groups were related to pain medication and postoperative diet; the most unclear areas included complications (33.6%) and pain medication (22.1%). The highest level of effectiveness was observed for the combination of written leaflets and verbal instructions among the educational approaches evaluated. In E group, the mean fear score was 5.7 (SD = 2.7) before the first and 4.9 (SD = 2.8) before the second extraction (p < 0.001), while in WE the score was higher 6.3 (SD = 2.7) (p = 0.012). Fear levels were lower among regular dentist attendees (p = 0.004), and in men (p < 0.0001).
conclusionInsufficient knowledge of postoperative care, especially in pain medication use, was observed, even among respondents with a prior history of the surgical extraction. Combined verbal and written instructions appeared to be associated with knowledge of preventive recommendations. Lower levels of fear were reported by men and by individuals with prior experience of the procedure.
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.