Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the 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 performed 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 affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an review originally published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012 and 2016. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 May 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 May 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov)and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. . SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with no restriction on length of follow-up, comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We also considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently and in duplicate conducted the risk of bias assessments. When information was unclear, we contacted the study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes the same two studies that were identified in our previous version of the review: one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom, and one prospective cohort study, which was conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low- to very low-certainty evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures. One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effects of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth. One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch. The included studies did not measure any of our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed or retained. Although retention of 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 very low certainty. 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 current lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision-making with people who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain these teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic 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 affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free 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. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 May 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies to 24 May 2016. We imposed no restrictions on language or date of publication in our search of electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no restriction on length of follow-up, if available. We considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently conducted risk of bias assessments in duplicate. When information was unclear, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes two studies. The previous review included one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom; our new search for this update identified one prospective cohort study conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low to very low quality evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures.One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effect of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low quality evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth.One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch.The included studies did not measure our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Routine oral examination: clinical vignettes, a promising tool for continuing professional development?

OBJECTIVES: To develop content for an educational system for dental professionals to be used for patient-tailored evidence-based decisions regarding routine oral examinations (ROEs) and to test the model as a tool in dental education. METHODS: Initially, an electronic database was developed comprising conclusive data of a structured literature search and 27 ROE clinical cases which were selected on predefined criteria. A RAND-modified Delphi procedure was successfully conducted with 31 multidisciplinary dental experts. Twenty-one selected risk factors for oral disease were assessed for feasibility and subsequently modelled into 19 risk based clinical vignettes, each representing a specific group of ROE-patients. Each vignette comprised all relevant clinical and non-clinical data. Expert judgements were collected including ROE-content, risk level, bitewing frequency and recall interval. Feedback regarding evidence was provided for each of the topics. A pilot with 35 experienced General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) was conducted to assess the reliability of the model for continuing professional development (CPD). Decisions made on content screening items, bitewing frequencies and recall interval were compared with expert opinions. RESULTS: A comprehensive set of clinical vignettes was developed. Expert consensus was reached with regard to risk factors to be applied, content of ROE-items, bitewing frequency and recall interval. Differences between GDPs and experts were found especially concerning recall length in low-risk patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical vignettes provide a promising educational instrument for CPD to improve clinical performance. Further research is needed to test the reliability of these set of 19 vignettes.

Routine oral examinations in primary care: which predictors determine what is done? A prospective clinical case recording study.

OBJECTIVES: Elements of a routine oral examination (ROE) in dental practice may be determined by patients' oral status, as recommended by prevailing knowledge, as well as by other factors. Our aim was to identify patient and GDP characteristics associated with aspects of oral health assessment (OHA) and clinical management (CM) in patients with various oral conditions. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed, based on clinical case recording of 1059 ROEs by 128 GDPs. A clinical case recording form was used to record oral health assessment, diagnoses made, and clinical management for each ROE. Multilevel logistic regression analyses (with random coefficients) were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 'patients' age' in domains OHA as well as CM was the most salient predictor, while 'positive attitude to periodontal screening' showed to be a prominent GDP-factor. Patient characteristics mostly involved in OHA and CM were 'disease-free period' (odds ratios from 0.21 to 0.66), 'oral health compliance' (odds ratios from 0.32 to 0.65) and 'risk for periodontal disease' (odds ratios from 1.79 to 4.97). 'Continuing professional development' (odds ratios from 2.54 to 4.95), 'mean reading hours' (odds ratios from 2.25 to 4.48) and 'cooperation with peers' (odds ratios from 2.78 to 3.72) showed to be significant GDP-predictors. CONCLUSIONS: ROEs are determined by patient oral health status, particularly by aspects of oral health compliance and risk for oral disease, but also by GDP characteristics. The latter may reflect perceptions of a professional role, which need to be considered in efforts to improve the quality of ROE in oral care.

Routine oral examination: clinical performance and management by general dental practitioners in primary care.

The aim of this clinical study was to explore the contents of routine oral examinations (ROE), carried out by Dutch general dental practitioners (GDPs), in relation to the oral health status of regularly attending patients. An observational study was performed, based on clinical case recording. Using The Data Station Project of the Dutch Dental Association as the study base, 215 GDPs were recruited, of whom 131 participated in the study. A clinical case-recording form was developed to document clinical behavior. The contents assessed concerned patient characteristics, contents of the ROE visit, diagnoses made, and clinical behavior in response to ROE findings. This study showed substantial variation in clinical behavior related to specific ROE domains, including patient history and record keeping, whereas GDPs acted consistently on other domains, such as clinical examination and recall length assessment. Furthermore, the ROE performance was more strongly associated with GDP characteristics than with patient characteristics. The mean ROE time was 10 min, and recall intervals were most frequently assigned at 6 months, irrespective of the oral condition. This study highlights a need for continuing education to promote risk-based oral screening. Further research is needed to identify factors responsible for the variation in GDP performance, just as research on clinical practice guideline implementation methods is warranted.

A cluster randomised controlled trial in primary dental care based intervention to improve professional performance on routine oral examinations and the management of asymptomatic impacted third molars: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Routine oral examination (ROE) refers to periodic monitoring of the general and oral health status of patients. In most developed Western countries a decreasing prevalence of oral diseases underpins the need for a more individualised approach in assigning individualised recall intervals for regular attendees instead of systematic fixed intervals. From a quality-of-care perspective, the effectiveness of the widespread prophylactic removal of mandibular impacted asymptomatic third molars (MIM) in adolescents and adults is also questionable. Data on the effectiveness of appropriate interventions to tackle such problems, and for promoting continuing professional development in oral health care are rare. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a cluster randomised controlled trial with groups of GDPs as the unit of randomisation. The aim is to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of small group quality improvement on professional decision-making of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in daily practice. Six peer groups ('IQual-groups') shall be randomised either to the intervention arm I or arm II. Groups of GDPs allocated to either of these arms act as each other's control group. An IQual peer group consists of eight to ten GDPs who meet in monthly structured sessions scheduled for discussion on practice-related topics. GDPs in both trial arms receive recently developed evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on ROE or MIM. The implementation strategy consists of one interactive IQual group meeting of two to three hours. In addition, both groups of GDPs receive feedback on personal and group characteristics, and are invited to make use of web-based patient risk vignettes for further individual training on risk assessment policy. Reminders (flow charts) will be sent by mail several weeks after the meeting. The main outcome measure for the ROE intervention arm is the use and appropriateness of individualised risk assessment in assigning recall intervals, and for the MIM-intervention group the use and appropriateness of individualised mandibular impacted third molar risk management. Both groups act as each other's control. Pre-intervention data will be collected in study months one through three. Post-intervention data collection will be performed after nine months.

Predictors of recall assignment decisions by general dental practitioners performing routine oral examinations.

The aim of this study was to explore the decision-making behavior of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in performing routine oral examinations (ROEs). Change over time was studied by comparing data from a cohort sample of participants in two surveys in 2000 and 2005. A written questionnaire was sent to 809 dentists (509 responses were obtained) and 475 (61%) were used for analysis. Of the respondents, 347 also participated in the survey in 2000. The mean number of diagnostic ROE items per ROE was 6.9 (standard deviation = 1.7). Groups of GDPs were distinguished based on their answer to the question 'Do you apply for all patients a fixed recall interval between two successive ROEs?' and four personal profiles. Of the GDPs, 38.5% (n = 183) assigned fixed recall intervals (Fxs) for all patients. Individual recall intervals (Ivs) were applied by 61.5% (n = 292) of GDPs, depending on specific selected patient characteristics and risk factors. Logistic regression showed that GDPs applying Fxs also used fixed periods between successive bitewing radiographs. Furthermore, GDPs applying Ivs conducted more frequent periodontal screening and, in the event of periodontal problems, were more inclined to prescribe radiographs. Over a 5 yr period, a shift towards Ivs assignment (from 49% in 2000 to 61.5% in 2005) was found. Differences in assigned recall intervals (Fxs/Ivs) by GDPs are determined by three clinical ROE predictors and two GDP profiles. A shift towards a more individual assessment was found between 2000 and 2005 in the way that Dutch GDPs are dealing with the assignment of recall interval frequency.

Routine oral examination: differences in characteristics of Dutch general dental practitioners related to type of recall interval.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore differences in behaviour (characteristics and opinions) among general dental practitioners (GDPs), using either a fixed (Fx) or an individualized recall interval (Iv) between successive routine oral examinations (ROEs). METHODS: In the year 2000, data were collected by means of a written questionnaire sent to a random stratified sample of 610 dentists of whom 521 responded, of which 508 (83%) were used for analysis. RESULTS: Two groups of GDPs were distinguished based on their answer to the question: 'Do you apply for all patients a fixed recall interval between two successive ROEs?' Fifty-one per cent of the GDPs (n=257) applied Fxs for all patients, generally for a period of 6 months. Ivs were applied by 49% (n=251) of GDPs, depending on the determination of specific patient characteristics. Logistic regression analysis showed that GDPs applying Fxs also used fixed periods between successive bitewing radiographs for all patients. Furthermore, dentists applying Ivs required more time to conduct an ROE, partly because of a more extensive periodontal screening. GDPs applying Fxs, adhered more to the opinion that a fixed recall regime (every 6 months, as existed before 1995) should be re-introduced, whereas the GDPs in support of Ivs were more in favour to support the opinion that the ROE is 'an excellent instrument for effective, individualized oral care'. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch GDPs differ in the way they deal with the determination of recall interval frequency. These are also specific differences in performance and opinions regarding ROE. With the changing prevalence of oral diseases and the skewed distribution within populations, further research is advocated on consistent decision making to determine the most appropriate recall policy in preventing oral disease.