No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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.

ObjectivesThe primary aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of postoperative irrigation of the socket with drinking tap water on inflammatory complications following lower third molar removal.Material and methodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial was carried out from June 2013 to June 2014. In one arm of the study, patients were instructed to irrigate the tooth socket and surgical site with a Monoject® Curved 412 Tip Syringe (Tyco/healthcare-Kendall, Mansfield, MA, USA) with tap water. In a second arm of the study, the standard postoperative instructions did not include irrigation instructions. The incidences of alveolar osteitis and wound infection were recorded for each group and analyzed by the Fisher’s exact test.ResultsA total of 280 patients with 333 mandibular third molars were analyzed. According to the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, inflammatory complications occurred in 18 cases in the Monoject® group (11.4 %) compared to 34 cases (19.1 %) in the control group (p = 0.04). These complications were associated with significant worse outcomes regarding quality of life, pain, and trismus and caused significantly more missed days of work or study. Female gender, age >26, bone removal, deep impacted third molars, less experienced surgeons, and a high amount of debris at the surgical site were also identified as risk factors for developing inflammatory complications following lower third molar removal.ConclusionIrrigation of the surgical site with drinking tap water using a curved syringe following removal of third molars is effective in reducing the risk of inflammatory complications.Clinical relevanceWater is a very accessible, cost-effective irrigant without side effects and the results from this study have proven that it can be used to reduce the risk of inflammatory complications and associated morbidity following lower third molar removal.

No abstract