Radiographic Methods Used Before Removal of Mandibular Third Molars Among Randomly Selected General Dental Clinics

Overview

Journal Dentomaxillofac Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Date 2016 Mar 5

PMID 26943178

Citations 10

Authors

Louise H Matzen

Lars B Petersen

Ann Wenzel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess radiographic methods and diagnostically sufficient images used before removal of mandibular third molars among randomly selected general dental clinics. Furthermore, to assess factors predisposing for an additional radiographic examination.

Methods: 2 observers visited 18 randomly selected clinics in Denmark and studied patient files, including radiographs of patients who had their mandibular third molar(s) removed. The radiographic unit and type of receptor were registered. A diagnostically sufficient image was defined as the whole tooth and mandibular canal were displayed in the radiograph (yes/no). Overprojection between the tooth and mandibular canal (yes/no) and patient-reported inferior alveolar nerve sensory disturbances (yes/no) were recorded. Regression analyses tested if overprojection between the third molar and the mandibular canal and an insufficient intraoral image predisposed for additional radiographic examination(s).

Results: 1500 mandibular third molars had been removed; 1090 had intraoral, 468 had panoramic and 67 had CBCT examination. 1000 teeth were removed after an intraoral examination alone, 433 after panoramic examination and 67 after CBCT examination. 90 teeth had an additional examination after intraoral. Overprojection between the tooth and mandibular canal was a significant factor (p < 0.001, odds ratio = 3.56) for an additional examination. 63.7% of the intraoral images were sufficient and 36.3% were insufficient, with no significant difference between images performed with phosphor plates and solid-state sensors (p = 0.6). An insufficient image predisposed for an additional examination (p = 0.008, odds ratio = 1.8) but was only performed in 11% of the cases.

Conclusions: Most mandibular third molars were removed based on an intraoral examination although 36.3% were insufficient.

Citing Articles

Investigation of the relationship between the mandibular third molar teeth and the inferior alveolar nerve using posteroanterior radiographs: a pilot study.

Apaydin B, Icoz D, Uzun E, Orhan K BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):371.

PMID: 38519914 PMC: 10958910. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04123-x.

Breakage and displacement of the high-speed hand-piece bur during impacted mandibular third molar extraction: three cases.

Li K, Xie B, Chen J, He Y BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22(1):222.

PMID: 35668519 PMC: 9169269. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02253-8.

Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT-scans of impacted lower third molars: a retrospective study.

Ilo A, Ekholm M, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Waltimo-Siren J BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21(1):670.

PMID: 34965859 PMC: 8717649. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-02029-6.

Radiographic imaging in relation to the mandibular third molar: a survey among oral surgeons in Sweden.

Cederhag J, Truedsson A, Alstergren P, Shi X, Hellen-Halme K Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 26(2):2073-2083.

PMID: 34596771 PMC: 8816342. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04189-9.

Comparison of CBCT and panoramic radiography for the assessment of bone loss and root resorption on the second molar associated with third molar impaction: a systematic review.

Moreira-Souza L, Oliveira L, Gaeta-Araujo H, Almeida-Marques M, Asprino L, Oenning A Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021; 51(3):20210217.

PMID: 34520245 PMC: 8925877. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210217.

References

Hellen-Halme K, Johansson P, Hakansson J, Petersson A . Image quality of digital and film radiographs in applications sent to the Dental Insurance Office in Sweden for treatment approval. Swed Dent J. 2004; 28(2):77-84. View

Petersen L, Vaeth M, Wenzel A . Neurosensoric disturbances after surgical removal of the mandibular third molar based on either panoramic imaging or cone beam CT scanning: A randomized controlled trial (RCT). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 45(2):20150224. PMC: 5308576. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150224. View

Ludlow J, Ivanovic M . Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(1):106-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018. View

Flygare L, Ohman A . Preoperative imaging procedures for lower wisdom teeth removal. Clin Oral Investig. 2008; 12(4):291-302. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-008-0200-1. View

Matzen L, Christensen J, Wenzel A . Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107(4):566-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.10.002. View

Renton T, Adey-Viscuso D, Meechan J, Yilmaz Z . Trigeminal nerve injuries in relation to the local anaesthesia in mandibular injections. Br Dent J. 2010; 209(9):E15. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.978. View

Sanmarti-Garcia G, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Gay-Escoda C . Does computed tomography prevent inferior alveolar nerve injuries caused by lower third molar removal?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 70(1):5-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.03.030. View

Shelley A, Brunton P, Horner K . Questionnaire surveys of dentists on radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41(4):267-75. PMC: 3729005. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/58627082. View

Matzen L, Christensen J, Hintze H, Schou S, Wenzel A . Influence of cone beam CT on treatment plan before surgical intervention of mandibular third molars and impact of radiographic factors on deciding on coronectomy vs surgical removal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 42(1):98870341. PMC: 5083118. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/98870341. View

10.

Guerrero M, Botetano R, Beltran J, Horner K, Jacobs R . Can preoperative imaging help to predict postoperative outcome after wisdom tooth removal? A randomized controlled trial using panoramic radiography versus cone-beam CT. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 18(1):335-42. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-0971-x. View

11.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S . Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32(4):229-34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26310390. View

12.

Petersen L, Olsen K, Christensen J, Wenzel A . Image and surgery-related costs comparing cone beam CT and panoramic imaging before removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(6):20140001. PMC: 4141671. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140001. View

13.

Matzen L, Schou S, Christensen J, Hintze H, Wenzel A . Audit of a 5-year radiographic protocol for assessment of mandibular third molars before surgical intervention. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(8):20140172. PMC: 4240262. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140172. View

14.

Matzen L, Wenzel A . Efficacy of CBCT for assessment of impacted mandibular third molars: a review - based on a hierarchical model of evidence. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 44(1):20140189. PMC: 4277437. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140189. View

15.

Hol C, Hellen-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Moystad A . How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014; 73(3):195-201. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2014.979866. View

16.

Petersen L, Olsen K, Matzen L, Vaeth M, Wenzel A . Economic and health implications of routine CBCT examination before surgical removal of the mandibular third molar in the Danish population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(6):20140406. PMC: 4628400. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140406. View

17.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W . Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35(4):219-26. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323. View