Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;104(4):735-43.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301652. Epub 2014 Feb 13.

Recommendations for third molar removal: a practice-based cohort study

Joana Cunha-Cruz  1 , Marilynn Rothen, Charles Spiekerman, Mark Drangsholt, Lyle McClellan, Greg J Huang; Northwest Practice-Based Research Collaborative in Evidence-Based Dentistry
Affiliations

Recommendations for third molar removal: a practice-based cohort study

Joana Cunha-Cruz et al. Am J Public Health. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

Objectives: We investigated general dentists' reasons for recommending removal or retention of third molars and whether patients adhered to dentists' recommendations.

Methods: In a 2-year prospective cohort study (2009-2011) in the Pacific Northwest, we followed 801 patients aged 16 to 22 years from 50 general dental practices. Generalized estimating equations logistic regressions related patient and dentist characteristics to dentists' recommendations to remove third molars and to patient adherence.

Results: General dentists recommended removal of 1683 third molars from 469 (59%) participants, mainly to prevent future problems (79%) or because a third molar had an unfavorable orientation or was unlikely to erupt (57%). Dentists recommended retention and monitoring of 1244 third molars from 366 (46%) participants, because it was too early to decide (73%), eruption path was favorable (39%), or space for eruption was sufficient (26%). When dentists recommended removal, 55% of participants adhered to this recommendation during follow-up, and the main reason was availability of insurance (88%).

Conclusions: General dentists frequently recommended removal of third molars for reasons not related to symptoms or pathology, but rather to prevent future problems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1—
FIGURE 1—
Reasons given by general dentists for recommending removal (n = 1683) or retention and monitoring (n = 1244) of third molars: Northwest Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry, Pacific Northwest, 2009–2011
FIGURE 2—
FIGURE 2—
Reasons given by patients to remove (n = 200) or retain and monitor (n = 396) third molars: Northwest Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry, Pacific Northwest, 2009–2011
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Eklund SA, Pittman JL. Third-molar removal patterns in an insured population. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(4):469–475. - PubMed
    1. Friedman JW. The prophylactic extraction of third molars: a public health hazard. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(9):1554–1559. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Osborn TP, Frederickson G, Jr, Small IA, Torgerson TS. A prospective study of complications related to mandibular third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985;43(10):767–769. - PubMed
    1. Bruce RA, Frederickson GC, Small GS. Age of patients and morbidity associated with mandibular third molar surgery. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;101(2):240–245. - PubMed
    1. de Boer MP, Raghoebar GM, Stegenga B, Schoen PJ, Boering G. Complications after mandibular third molar extraction. Quintessence Int. 1995;26(11):779–784. - PubMed

Publication types