Third molars and periodontal damage of second molars in the general population

Kindler, Stefan; Holtfreter, Birte; Koppe, Thomas; Mksoud, Maria; Lucas, Christian; Seebauer, Christian; Völzke, Henry; Kocher, Thomas; Johnson, K.; Langner, Sönke; Albers, Martin; Metelmann, Hans‐Robert; Ittermann, Till

doi:10.1111/jcpe.13008

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, studies have confirmed that the presence of impacted M3s (I-M3s) increases the risk of M2 pathology by 1.45-4.88 folds [8,9]. In recent years, investigations have found that erupted M3s (E-M3s) also negatively impact oral health and scientists have reported that the presence of E-M3s increases the risk of M2 pathology by 1.44-1.77 folds [8,9,10]. When M2s are too heavily damaged to be treated or controlled, they can only be removed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…[6]. Among the various risk factors to M2 pathology, the presence of its neighboring M3s has attracted increasing attention [7,8,9]. In this context, studies have confirmed that the presence of impacted M3s (I-M3s) increases the risk of M2 pathology by 1.45-4.88 folds [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the various risk factors to M2 pathology, the presence of its neighboring M3s has attracted increasing attention [7,8,9]. In this context, studies have confirmed that the presence of impacted M3s (I-M3s) increases the risk of M2 pathology by 1.45-4.88 folds [8,9]. In recent years, investigations have found that erupted M3s (E-M3s) also negatively impact oral health and scientists have reported that the presence of E-M3s increases the risk of M2 pathology by 1.44-1.77 folds [8,9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Loss of 908 Second Molars in Chinese adults: Consequences of the Presence of Their Neighboring Third Molars?

Sun¹,

Tian²,

Qu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many studies have reported that the presence of third molars (M3s) can increase the risk of pathology in neighboring second molars (M2s). However, whether the presence of M3s can effect the mortality of M2s remains unknown. The main aim of this study was to reveal the reasons for M2 loss and how the M2 loss were related to their neighboring M3s. Methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. A review of the medical records and radiographic imagines of patients who had their M2(s) removed was undertaken to analyze the reasons for tooth extraction and how those reasons were related to the presence of M3s situated adjacent to the removed M2s. Results Clinical material (from January to March 2019) of 800 patients met the inclusion criteria were involved into this study. M2s in 908 quadrants (i.e. 908 M2s) were removed from these enrolled patients, wherein 382 quadrants were with the absence of M3s and the other 526 quadrants were with the presence of M3s. The average age of patients whose missing M2s had or had no neighboring M3s was 52.4 ± 14.8 years and 56.7 ± 14.9 years respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.001). When the reasons for the 908 extracted M2s were traced, it was found that 433 teeth (47.7%) were removed due to caries and sequelae, while 300 teeth (33.0%) were lost for periodontal diseases. In addition, substantial evidence confirmed that 14.4% of the M2s with adjacent M3s were removed due to diseases mainly in the distal surface which were closely related to their neighboring M3s, and it was much higher than that was identified from removed M2s without adjacent M3s (1.8%). Except for residual roots, 42.2% M3s were removed along with neighboring M2s simultaneously. Conclusions The presence of M3s, no matter impacted or erupted M3s, was associated with an earlier loss of their neighboring M2s.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Loss of 908 Second Molars in Chinese adults: Consequences of the Presence of Their Neighboring Third Molars?

Sun¹,

Tian²,

Qu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the different types of M3s, it is generally believed that impacted third molars (I‐M3s) are often symptomatic and have an increased likelihood to be a risk factor for disease development in neighboring teeth (Polat, Ozan, Kara, Ozdemir, & Ay, 2008; Yilmaz, Adisen, Misirlioglu, & Yorubulut, 2016). However, recent investigations have found that retained non‐impacted third molars (N‐M3s), that is, erupted M3s, also negatively impact dental health (Kindler et al, 2018; Li, Qu, Zhou, Tian, & Chen, 2017; Li, Qu, Zhou, Tian, Gao, et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar findings were also found in the general population. Among the total population, subjects with mandibular erupted third molars (most likely N‐M3s) had a higher risk of deep PD values in their adjacent M2s than those without M3s (Kindler et al, 2018). On the other hand, a cross‐sectional study based on radiological data of 4,057 patients showed that the prevalence of alveolar bone loss in the distal M2s adjacent to N‐M3s was 40.4%, which was similar to that of M2s adjacent to I‐M3s (41.5%; Li, Qu, Zhou, Tian, & Chen, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of non‐impacted third molar removal on the periodontal condition of adjacent second molars

Sun

Tian

et al. 2020

Oral Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to determine how the removal of non‐impacted third molars (N‐M3s) affects the periodontal status of neighboring second molars (M2s). Subjects and Methods The periodontal condition of M2s for which the neighboring N‐M3s were removed (more than 6 months previously) and those with intact N‐M3s was analyzed in a cross‐sectional observation study. In an additional case series, periodontal changes in M2s in response to adjacent N‐M3 removal were observed during a 6‐month follow‐up period. Results A total of 457 patients with 1,301 M2s were enrolled in this cross‐sectional observational study. Compared to M2s with neighboring N‐M3s, M2s without neighboring N‐M3s (teeth removed more than 6 months previously) exhibited a 0.27‐mm reduction in the average pocket depth (PD) (p < .001) and a 0.38‐fold reduced risk of at least one probing site with PD ≥5 mm (PD5+) (p < .001). Subsequently, a 41‐case follow‐up study showed that 6 months after neighboring N‐M3 extraction, the PD of the M2s decreased by 0.31 mm (p < .001), while the incidence of PD5+ decreased by 21.9% when compared to the parameters detected before tooth extraction (p = .004). Conclusions Removing N‐M3s was associated with an improved periodontal condition in neighboring M2s.

show abstract

Periodontal disease measures and risk of incident peripheral artery disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

Arsiwala¹,

Mok

Yang

et al. 2021

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The association of periodontal disease with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases is well known, but not specifically with incident peripheral artery disease (PAD). Therefore, we studied the associations of periodontal disease with incident PAD in a population-based setting. Methods: Among 9,793 participants (aged 53-75 years) without prevalent PAD, self-reported history of periodontal disease was ascertained. Of these, 5,872 participants underwent full-mouth examinations from which periodontal status was defined using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-American Academy of Periodontology (CDC-AAP) definition. We quantified the association of periodontal disease with incident PAD (defined by hospital admission diagnosis or procedures) using multivariable Cox regression models. Results: During a median follow-up of 20.1 years, 360 participants (3.6%) developed PAD. In models accounting for potential confounders including diabetes and smoking pack-years, there was higher hazard of PAD in participants with self-reported tooth loss because of periodontal disease (hazard ratio:1.54 [95% CI:1.20-1.98]), history of periodontal disease treatment (1.37 [1.05-1.80]), and periodontal disease diagnosis (1.38 [1.09-1.74]), compared to their respective counterparts. The clinical measure of periodontal disease (n = 5,872) was not significantly associated with incident PAD in the fully adjusted model (e.g., 1.53 [0.94-2.50] in CDC-AAP-defined severe periodontal disease versus no disease). Conclusion:We observed a modest association of self-reported periodontal disease, especially when resulting in tooth loss, with incident PAD in the general population. Nonetheless, a larger study with the clinical measure of periodontal disease is warranted.

show abstract

Third molars and periodontal damage of second molars in the general population

Abstract: In particular, in the mandible, those findings could guide dental practitioners more in the direction to remove the third molars after having evaluated the periodontium of the adjacent teeth.

Cited by 24 publications

References 41 publications

Loss of 908 Second Molars in Chinese adults: Consequences of the Presence of Their Neighboring Third Molars?

Loss of 908 Second Molars in Chinese adults: Consequences of the Presence of Their Neighboring Third Molars?

Impacts of non‐impacted third molar removal on the periodontal condition of adjacent second molars

Periodontal disease measures and risk of incident peripheral artery disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About