Cargando…

Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the presence of mandibular third molars and the occurrence of carious lesions in the distal aspect of the mandibular second molar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study comprising 327 lower third molars extr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marques, José, Montserrat-Bosch, Marta, Figueiredo, Rui, Vilchez-Pérez, Miguel-Angel, Valmaseda-Castellón, Eduard, Gay-Escoda, Cosme
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5474337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28638558
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53919
_version_ 1783244428661489664
author Marques, José
Montserrat-Bosch, Marta
Figueiredo, Rui
Vilchez-Pérez, Miguel-Angel
Valmaseda-Castellón, Eduard
Gay-Escoda, Cosme
author_facet Marques, José
Montserrat-Bosch, Marta
Figueiredo, Rui
Vilchez-Pérez, Miguel-Angel
Valmaseda-Castellón, Eduard
Gay-Escoda, Cosme
author_sort Marques, José
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the presence of mandibular third molars and the occurrence of carious lesions in the distal aspect of the mandibular second molar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study comprising 327 lower third molars extracted in the Oral Surgery and Implantology Master’s Degree program of the School of Dentistry of the University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) was carried out. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was made. The diagnosis of caries in the second molar and the position of the mandibular third molar were evaluated through panoramic radiographies. RESULTS: The sample included 203 patients, 94 males (46.3%) and 109 females (53.7%), with a mean age of 26,8 years and 327 lower third molars. The prevalence of second molar distal caries was 25.4% (95% CI= 20.6% to 30.2%). This pathology was significantly more frequent when the third molar was in a horizontal position (27.7%), when the contact point was at (45,8%) or below (47.0%) the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), and when the distal CEJ of the mandibular second molar and the mesial CEJ of the third molar was 7 to 12 mm apart. CONCLUSIONS: Horizontal lower third molars with contact points at or below the CEJ are more likely to produce distal caries in the mandibular second molars. Due to the high prevalence of this pathology (20.6% to 30.2%), a prophylactic removal of lower third molars with the above-mentioned features might be advisable. Key words:Second molar, caries, third molar, prophylactic removal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5474337
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54743372017-06-21 Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified? Marques, José Montserrat-Bosch, Marta Figueiredo, Rui Vilchez-Pérez, Miguel-Angel Valmaseda-Castellón, Eduard Gay-Escoda, Cosme J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the presence of mandibular third molars and the occurrence of carious lesions in the distal aspect of the mandibular second molar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study comprising 327 lower third molars extracted in the Oral Surgery and Implantology Master’s Degree program of the School of Dentistry of the University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) was carried out. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was made. The diagnosis of caries in the second molar and the position of the mandibular third molar were evaluated through panoramic radiographies. RESULTS: The sample included 203 patients, 94 males (46.3%) and 109 females (53.7%), with a mean age of 26,8 years and 327 lower third molars. The prevalence of second molar distal caries was 25.4% (95% CI= 20.6% to 30.2%). This pathology was significantly more frequent when the third molar was in a horizontal position (27.7%), when the contact point was at (45,8%) or below (47.0%) the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), and when the distal CEJ of the mandibular second molar and the mesial CEJ of the third molar was 7 to 12 mm apart. CONCLUSIONS: Horizontal lower third molars with contact points at or below the CEJ are more likely to produce distal caries in the mandibular second molars. Due to the high prevalence of this pathology (20.6% to 30.2%), a prophylactic removal of lower third molars with the above-mentioned features might be advisable. Key words:Second molar, caries, third molar, prophylactic removal. Medicina Oral S.L. 2017-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5474337/ /pubmed/28638558 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53919 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Marques, José
Montserrat-Bosch, Marta
Figueiredo, Rui
Vilchez-Pérez, Miguel-Angel
Valmaseda-Castellón, Eduard
Gay-Escoda, Cosme
Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
title Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
title_full Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
title_fullStr Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
title_full_unstemmed Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
title_short Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
title_sort impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5474337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28638558
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53919
work_keys_str_mv AT marquesjose impactedlowerthirdmolarsanddistalcariesinthemandibularsecondmolarisprophylacticremovaloflowerthirdmolarsjustified
AT montserratboschmarta impactedlowerthirdmolarsanddistalcariesinthemandibularsecondmolarisprophylacticremovaloflowerthirdmolarsjustified
AT figueiredorui impactedlowerthirdmolarsanddistalcariesinthemandibularsecondmolarisprophylacticremovaloflowerthirdmolarsjustified
AT vilchezperezmiguelangel impactedlowerthirdmolarsanddistalcariesinthemandibularsecondmolarisprophylacticremovaloflowerthirdmolarsjustified
AT valmasedacastelloneduard impactedlowerthirdmolarsanddistalcariesinthemandibularsecondmolarisprophylacticremovaloflowerthirdmolarsjustified
AT gayescodacosme impactedlowerthirdmolarsanddistalcariesinthemandibularsecondmolarisprophylacticremovaloflowerthirdmolarsjustified