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.

Notes This trial has been stopped this year (2004). At this moment the reason has not been communicated to the reviewers 13 Interventions for treating asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults (Review)

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.

BackgroundInsight into the frequency and seriousness of potentially unsafe situations may be the first step towards improving patient safety. Most patient safety attention has been paid to patient safety in hospitals. However, in many countries, patients receive most of their healthcare in primary care settings. There is little concrete information about patient safety in primary care in the Netherlands. The overall aim of this study was to provide insight into the current patient safety issues in Dutch general practices, out-of-hours primary care centres, general dental practices, midwifery practices, and allied healthcare practices. The objectives of this study are: to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients; to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals; and to provide insight into patient safety management in primary care practices.Design and methodsThe study consists of three parts: a retrospective patient record study of 1,000 records per practice type was conducted to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients (objective one); a prospective component concerns an incident-reporting study in each of the participating practices, during two successive weeks, to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals (objective two); to provide insight into patient safety management in Dutch primary care practices (objective three), we surveyed organizational and cultural items relating to patient safety. We analysed the incidents found in the retrospective patient record study and the prospective incident-reporting study by type of incident, causes (Eindhoven Classification Model), actual harm (severity-of-outcome domain of the International Taxonomy of Medical Errors in Primary Care), and probability of severe harm or death.DiscussionTo estimate the frequency of incidents was difficult. Much depended on the accuracy of the patient records and the professionals' consensus about which types of adverse events have to be recognized as incidents.

In Western European countries, dentists use standardized procedures, rather than individualized risk assessment, for routine oral examinations. The predictive hypothesis was that guideline implementation strategies based on multifaceted interventions would be more effective in patient care than the dissemination of guidelines only. A cluster-randomized trial was conducted, with groups of general dental practitioners (GDPs) as the unit of randomization. Patients were clustered within practices and prospectively enrolled in the trial. Patient data were collected from registration forms. The primary outcome measure was guideline-adherent recall assignment, and a secondary outcome measure was guideline-adherent bitewing frequency. The interventions consisted of online training, guideline dissemination, and educational sessions. For low-risk patients, guideline-adherent recall increased in the intervention group (+8%), which differed from the control group (-6.1%) (p = 0.01). Guideline-adherent bitewings showed mixed results. We conclude that multifaceted intervention had a moderate but relevant effect on the performance of GDPs, which is consistent with other findings in primary care.

No abstract

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.

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.