青少年和成人无症状阻生智齿的治疗干预措施。

Interventions for treating asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.

作者信息

Mettes T G, Nienhuijs M E L, van der Sanden W J M, Verdonschot E H, Plasschaert A J M

机构信息

Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Centre, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, P.O. Box 9101, NL-6500HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 6500 HB.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18(2):CD003879. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003879.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth is defined as the (surgical) removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth have been associated with pathological changes, such as inflammation of the gums around the tooth, root resorption, gums- and alveolar bone disease, damage of the adjacent teeth, the development of cysts and tumours. Several other reasons to justify prophylactic removal have also been given. Wisdom teeth do not always fulfil a functional role in the mouth. When surgical removal is carried out in older patients the risk of more postoperative complications, pain and discomfort increases. Nevertheless, in most developed countries the prophylactic removal of trouble-free wisdom teeth, either impacted or fully erupted, has long been considered as 'appropriate care'. Prudent decision-making, with adherence to specified indicators for removal, may reduce the number of surgical procedures by 60% or more. It has been suggested that watchful monitoring of asymptomatic wisdom teeth may be an appropriate strategy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults compared with the retention of these wisdom teeth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched:The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (4 August 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 4 August 2004), PubMed (1966 to 4 August 2004), EMBASE (1974 to 4 August 2004). There was no restriction on language. Key journals were handsearched. An attempt was made to identify ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or controlled clinical trials (RCTs/CCTs) comparing the effect of prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth with no-treatment (retention).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of relevance, validity and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by three reviewers. Where uncertainty existed, authors were contacted for additional information about randomisation and withdrawals. A quality assessment of the trials was carried out.

MAIN RESULTS

Only three trials were identified that satisfied the review selection criteria. Two were completed RCTs and both assessed the influence of prophylactic removal on late incisor crowding in adolescents. One ongoing RCT was identified, but the researchers were unable to provide any data. They intend to publish in the near future and information received will be included in updates. Although both completed trials met the inclusion criteria of the review, regarding participants characteristics, interventions and outcomes assessed, different outcomes measures were assessed which prevented pooling of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found to support or refute routine prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adults. There is some reliable evidence that suggests that the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents neither reduces nor prevents late incisor crowding.

摘要

背景

预防性拔除无症状阻生智齿被定义为在无局部疾病情况下(手术)拔除智齿。阻生智齿与病理变化相关,如牙齿周围牙龈炎症、牙根吸收、牙龈及牙槽骨疾病、相邻牙齿损伤、囊肿和肿瘤的发生。还给出了其他一些支持预防性拔除的理由。智齿在口腔中并不总是发挥功能性作用。在老年患者中进行手术拔除时,术后出现更多并发症、疼痛和不适的风险会增加。然而,在大多数发达国家,预防性拔除无问题的智齿,无论是阻生的还是完全萌出的,长期以来都被视为“适当的治疗”。谨慎决策并遵循特定的拔除指标,可将手术数量减少60%或更多。有人建议对无症状智齿进行密切监测可能是一种合适的策略。

目的

评估与保留无症状阻生智齿相比,预防性拔除青少年和成人无症状阻生智齿的效果。

检索策略

检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库(2004年8月4日)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(1966年至2004年8月4日)、PubMed(1966年至2004年8月4日)、EMBASE(1974年至2004年8月4日)。对语言无限制。对手检关键期刊。试图识别正在进行和未发表的试验。

选择标准

所有比较预防性拔除无症状阻生智齿与不治疗(保留)效果的随机或对照临床试验(RCTs/CCTs)。

数据收集与分析

相关性、有效性评估和数据提取由三位评审员独立进行两次。如有不确定性,会联系作者获取关于随机化和撤组的更多信息。对试验进行了质量评估。

主要结果

仅识别出三项符合综述选择标准的试验。两项是已完成的RCT,均评估了预防性拔除对青少年晚期切牙拥挤的影响。识别出一项正在进行的RCT,但研究人员无法提供任何数据。他们打算在不久后发表,收到的信息将纳入更新内容。尽管两项已完成的试验均符合综述的纳入标准,但就参与者特征、干预措施和评估的结局而言,评估的结局指标不同,因此无法合并数据。

作者结论

未发现证据支持或反驳对成人无症状阻生智齿进行常规预防性拔除。有一些可靠证据表明,对青少年无症状阻生智齿进行预防性拔除既不会减少也不能预防晚期切牙拥挤。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索