French good practice guidelines regarding third molar removal: Indications, techniques, methods

To prophylactically extract or not to extract partially erupted mesio-angularly impacted lower third molars?

Introduction Prophylactic removal of mesio-angularly impacted mandibular third molars (MAIM3Ms) has been discouraged by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2000. Consequently, partially erupted MAIM3Ms are retained for longer and only extracted if complications arise. The debate whether to extract prophylactically or to monitor these teeth is ongoing.Pathologies associated with retained partially erupted MAIM3Ms Retaining third molars long into adulthood has been associated with an increased risk of distal cervical caries and external root resorption of the second molar, periodontal disease and pericoronitis, among other pathologies. Although watchful monitoring can help to identify these pathologies, their nature often leads not only to a poor prognosis for the third molar, but also for the second molar, which then requires costly and time-consuming restorative or even prosthodontic work.Considering prophylactic extractions While an individual risk assessment is paramount, prophylactic removal of partially erupted MAIM3Ms has been shown to have positive effects on oral health-related quality of life, to relieve the pressure on secondary care services and to be economically feasible for the NHS.Conclusion While long-term prospective cohort studies are necessary to put an end to the ongoing controversy, patients' needs and wishes should be at the forefront of the provision of care.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of xenograft to prevent periodontal defects after mandibular third molar extraction

Background

To evaluate the use of guided bone regeneration with xenograft to prevent periodontal defect in the distal aspect of the second molar after the surgical removal of the mandibular third molar.

Material and Methods

Three electronic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Scopus) were searched in April 2020. Randomized clinical trials in non-smokers and healthy patients, with at least six months follow-up, comparing periodontal probing depth, clinical attachment level, alveolar bone level and adverse events were selected by two independent investigators. The risk of bias assessment of the selected studies was evaluated by means of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool. Finally, a meta-analysis of the outcomes of interest was performed.

Results

Despite 795 articles were found in the initial search, only three randomized controlled clinical trials were included. Pooled results favoured the use of the xenograft plus collagen membrane over the spontaneous healing in terms of periodontal probing depth gain (MD=2.36; 95% CI 0.69 to 4.03; P=0.005) and clinical attachment level gain (MD=2.52; 95% CI 0.96 to 4.09; P=0.002). No other statistically significant differences were found.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of the present review, the xenograft plus collagen membrane exhibited better periodontal results than spontaneous healing without increasing postoperative complications. However, future well-designed studies with larger samples are required to confirm our results.

Key words:Third molar, tooth extraction, bone regeneration, xenograft.