The Impact of General and Local Factors as Criterions of Assessment for the Difficult Lower Wisdom Tooth. A Retrospective Study (original) (raw)

Abstract

‫ـﺎﺋﻲ.‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻹﺣﺼ‬ ‫ـﺎﺋﺞ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺘ‬ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻴﻨ‬ ‫ـﻤﻨﺖ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺗﻀ‬ : ٦٢.٥ ‫ا‬ ‫ـﻦ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ % ‫و‬ ‫ـﺎث‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻹﻧ‬ ٣٧.٥ ‫ـﺮ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤ‬ ‫ـﻂ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳ‬ ‫ـﺎن‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻛ‬ ‫ـﺬﻛﻮر،‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟ‬ ‫ـﻦ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ % ٢٤.٥ ‫ـﻢ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﻔ‬ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻓﺘﺤ‬ ‫ـﺪل‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻣﻌ‬ ‫و‬ ‫ـﻨﺔ،‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ ٣٩ ‫ـﻴﺔ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺋﻴﺴ‬ ‫اﻟﺮ‬ ‫ـﻜﻮى‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﺸ‬ ‫ـﻢ،‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻣﻠ‬ ‫اﱂ‬ ‫ـﺎﱄ)‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﺘ‬ ‫ـﻜﻞ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸ‬ ‫ـﺖ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺗﻮزﻋ‬ ٦٥ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫دور‬ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﺟﻌ‬ ‫ﻣﺮ‬ ،% ٢٥.٨ ‫ـﻨﺎن‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫أﺳ‬ ‫ـﻮﱘ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺗﻘ‬ ،% ٦.٧ ‫ـﺮى‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫أﺧ‬ ‫ـﺒﺎب‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫أﺳ‬ ،% ٢.٥ ‫ـﻜﻞ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺸ‬ ‫ـﺐ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺴ‬ ‫ـﺖ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺗﻮزﻋ‬ ‫ـﻮري‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺟﺮﳚ‬ ‫و‬ ‫ـﻞ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺑﻴ‬ ‫ـﻨﻴﻒ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﺗﺼ‬ ‫ـﺐ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﲝﺴ‬ (% ‫ـﻨﻒ‬ ‫ﺻ‬ ‫ـﺎﱄ)‬ ‫اﻟﺘ‬ І ٤٤.٢ ‫ـﻨﻒ‬ ‫،ﺻ‬ % ІІ ٤٤.١ ،% ‫ـﻨﻒ‬ ‫ﺻ‬ ІІІ ١١.٧ ‫ـﻲ‬ ‫اﻷﻓﻘ‬ ‫ـﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧ‬ ‫ـﻮر‬ ‫اﳌﻄﻤ‬ ‫ـﺮس‬ ‫اﻟﻀ‬ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫اوﻳ‬ ‫ز‬ ‫إﱃ‬ ‫ـﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴ‬ (% ١٥.٨ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫اوﻳ‬ ‫اﻟﺰ‬ ‫ـﻲ‬ ‫اﻧﺴ‬ % ٤٤.٢ ‫ـﻮدي‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ﻋﻤ‬ ، % ٢٤.٢ ‫اوﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺰ‬ ‫وﺣﺸﻲ‬ ، % ١٥.٨ ‫ا‬ ‫ـﺘﻮى‬ ‫اﳌﺴ‬) ‫ـﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎت‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬ ‫و‬ ،% ٤٠ ‫ب‬ ‫ـﺘﻮى‬ ‫اﳌﺴ‬ ‫و‬ % ٣٦ ‫ج‬ ‫ـﺘﻮى‬ ‫ﻣﺴ‬ ‫و‬ % ١٧ ‫ـﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴ‬ ‫ـﺘﻐﺮق‬ ‫اﳌﺴ‬ ‫ـﺰﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟ‬ ‫ـﺪل‬ ‫ﻣﻌ‬ ‫ـﺎن‬ ‫ﻛ‬ ‫%(و‬ ‫اﳋﱪة‬ ‫ذوي‬ ‫اﺣﲔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺠﺮ‬ ٢٣.٣٣ ‫دﻗﻴﻘ‬ ‫ﻟﻐﲑﻫﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﺎن‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ABSTRACT Aims: The aim of the study is to evaluate the relationship of the general and local factors which have an impact on the difficulty during the removal of impacted lower wisdom teeth. Several factors such as age , gender, mouth opening , chief complain, bone surrounding and radiographic appearance and surgeon experience, will be included as factors which affect the difficulty during the removal of impacted lower wisdom teeth. Materials and methods: One hundred twenty medically fit patients were selected with an age range between 17-47 years of both sexes had impacted lower third molars and indicated for surgical extraction. Surgical removal performed by senior surgeon and junior, operation was performed under local anesthesia, all cases done between November 2008-June 2010, in oral and maxillo-facial surgery department\dentistry college university of Mosul the collected data were analyzed statistically by using SPSS program. Results: the sample comprised of 62.5% female and 37.5% male with mean age 24.5 years, the mean of the mouth opening was 39mm, the chief complain distributed as fol-low(pain 65%, dental check up 25.8%, orthodontic reasons 6.7% and others 2.5%), according to Pell and Gregory classification the percentage were class І 44.2%, class ІІ 44.1%, class ІІІ 11.7%, while the angulations were horizontally 15.8%, mesioangular 44.2%, vertical 24.2%,distoangular 15.8%, levels position A 40%, position B 36%, position C 17%. The mean time for the experienced surgeon was 23.33 minutes while for the non experienced 53.11 minutes. There was statistically significant difference between the time of the operation and the experience of the surgeon at P value =0.003. The relation between the time of the operation and class, level and angulations of impaction was statistically not significant. To successfully evaluate the difficulty of lower third molar extraction prior to surgery, clinical, radiologic findings, local and general factors must be taken into account and there are special indexes used in the assessment of difficulty in lower wisdom tooth surgery with no one of them considered the most reliable one because of the difference in the studies samples and in the local and general factors that had been used in the assessment of difficulty like age, gender, mouth opening , chief complain in addition to the clinical and radio graphical features. Conclusions: in regardless of type of difficulty index used in addition to local and general factors as a criteria for the assessment of lower molar 115 tooth extraction , we concluded that the factor of experience of the surgeon is the most important factor that have a significant effect on the duration of the surgery.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (28)

  1. Larry J. Peterson .Peterson`s Con- temporary Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Mosby, Fourth edition; 2003; 184
  2. Benediktsdottir IS, Wenzel A, Pe- tersen JK, Hintze H: Mandibular third molar removal: risk indicators for extended operation time, post- operative pain, and complications. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004, 97:438- 446.
  3. Berge TI, Boe OE: Predictor evalu- ation of postoperative morbidity af- ter surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Acta Odontol Scand 1994, 52:162-169.
  4. Bruce RA, Frederickson GC, Small GS: Age of patients and morbidity associated with mandibular third molar surgery. J Am Dent Assoc 1980, 101:240-245.
  5. Capuzzi P, Montebugnoli L, Vac- caro MA: Extraction of impacted third molars. A longitudinal pro- spective study on factors that affect postoperative recovery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994, 77:341-343.
  6. Shepherd JP, Brickley M: Activity analysis: measurement of the effec- tiveness of surgical training and operative technique. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992, 74:417-420. dis- cussion 421
  7. Sisk AL, Hammer WB, Shelton DW, Joy ED Jr: Complications fol- lowing removal of impacted third molars: the role of the experience of the surgeon. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1986,44:855-859.
  8. Nordenram A, Hultin M, Kjellman O, Ramstrom G. indication for sur- gical removal of mandibular third molar. Swed Dent J 1987; 11:23- 29.
  9. Lysell L, Rohlin M. A study of in- dications used for removal of the mandibular third molar. Int J Oral MaxillofacSurg. 1988; 17:161-164.
  10. Knutsson K, Brehmer B, Lysell L, Rohlin M. Pathosis associated with mandibular third molars subjected to removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod .1996; 82: 10-17.
  11. Eddy DM. medical decision mak- ing : from theory to practice. Anat- omy of decision. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 263: 441-443.
  12. Bouloux GF, Steed MB, Perciac- cante VJ. Complications of third molar surgery. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin North Am. 2007; 19: 117-28.
  13. Bui CH, Seldin EB, Doson TB. Types, frequencies and risk factors for complications after third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61:1379-89.
  14. Koerner KR. The removal of im- pacted third molars. Principles and procedures. Dent Clin North Am. 1994;38:255-78.
  15. Almendros-Marqués N, Alaejos- Algarra E, Quinteros-Borgarello M, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Factors influencing the prophylac- tic removal of asymptomatic im- pacted lower third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:29- 35.
  16. Darlen Pedersen. Oral surgery, Surgical removal of teeth. Saunders core text book in dentistry, 1988;ch 4:p 63.
  17. Diniz-Freitas M, Lago-Méndez L, Gude-Sampedro F, Somoza- Martin JM, G ndara-Rey JM, Garc A. Pederson scale fails to predict how difficult it will be to extract lower third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;45:23-26.
  18. Srinivas M, Thomas B. How well do clinicians estimate third molar extraction difficulty, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Volume 63, Issue 2, February 2005, Pages 191-199.
  19. Hazelkorn HM, Macek MD. Per- ception of the need for removal of impacted third molars by general dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52:681-6.
  20. Pell GJ, Gregory G. Impacted mandibular third molar classifica- tion and modified techniques for removal. Dent Digest. 1993; 39: 330-338. Cited by: Garcia AG, Sampedro FG, Rey JG,Vila PG, Martin MS. Pell-Gregory classifi- cation is unreliable as a predictor of difficulty in extracting impacted lower third molars. Br J Oral Max- illofac Surg. 2000; 38: 585-587.
  21. Yuasa H, Kawai T, Sugiura M. Classification of surgical difficulty in extracting impacted third mo- lars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;40:26-31.
  22. Jose B, Marcio D, lucia l, Abel García-García. Evaluation of the surgical difficulty in lower third molar extraction, Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010 Nov 1;15 (6):e869-74.
  23. Macluskey M, Slevin M, Curran M, Nesbitt R. Indications for and anticipated difficulty of third molar surgery: a comparison between a dental hospital and a specialist high street practice. Br Dent J. 2005;199:671-5.
  24. Michael M, G.E. Ghali, Petre E. Larsen. Peterson's Principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery , se- cond edition , BC decker Inc Ham- ilton .London 2004, volume 1 part 2: dento-alveolar surgery chapter 8; p:144.
  25. Van Gool AV, Ten Bosch JJ, BoeringG. Clinical consequences of complaints and complications after removal of the mandibular third molar. Int J OralSurg. 1977; 6: 29-33.
  26. Mason DA. Lingual nerve damage following lower third molar sur- gery. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988; 17: 290-294.
  27. Mohammad S S, Wa'el T Al- Wattar, Karam H Jazrawi .A comparative double-blind study among two universal systems of classification of impacted lower wisdom tooth and duration of sur- gery. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2006 ; 6: 46.
  28. Shallawi W. Delemi Z Al -Rafidain Dent J Vol. 14, No1, 2014