Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed. Although asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is of very low quality. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision making with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.
Insufficient evidence was found to support or refute routine prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adults. A single trial comparing removal versus retention found no evidence of a difference on late lower incisor crowding at 5 years, however no other relevant outcomes were measured.Watchful monitoring of asymptomatic third molar teeth may be a more prudent strategy.
BackgroundProphylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is carried out in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the a ected area. Removal of asymptomatic diseasefree wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an existing review published in 2012.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the e ects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.
Introduction: For effective risk communication, clinicians must understand patients' values and beliefs in relation to the risks of treatment. This qualitative study aimed to explore adolescent perceptions of orthodontic treatment risks and risk information. Methods: Five focus groups were carried out with 32 school/college pupils aged 12-18 in Wales, UK. Participants were purposively selected and had all experienced orthodontic treatment. A thematic approach was used for analysis and data collection was completed at the point of data saturation. Results: Four themes emerged from the data; (a) day-to-day risks of orthodontic treatment, (b) important orthodontic risk information, (c) engaging with orthodontic risk information and (d) managing the risks of orthodontic treatment. Day-to-day risks of orthodontic treatment that were affecting participants "here and now" were of most concern. Information about preventing the risks of treatment was deemed to be important. Participants did not actively seek risk information but engaged passively with information from convenient sources. Perceptions of risk susceptibility influenced participants' management of the risks of orthodontic treatment. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that adolescent patients can understand information about the nature and severity of orthodontic treatment risks. However, adolescent patients can have false perceptions if the risks are unfamiliar, perceived only to have a future impact or if seen as easy to control. Adolescent patients must be provided with timely and easily accessible risk information and with practical solutions to prevent the risks of treatment. Clinical significance: The views and experiences gathered in this study can assist clinicians to better understand their young patients' beliefs about treatment risks, facilitate effective risk communication and contribute to improved patient-centred care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.