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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |