Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 41, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Institute of Dentistry, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Aug;24(8):2727-2733. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03134-1. Epub 2019 Nov 21.
The aim of the study was to compare the findings of clinical examination and panoramic radiograph regarding the occurrence of third molars in a population survey to find out how many third molars remain clinically unnoticed.
A two-staged stratified cluster-sampling method was used to select 8028 participants representing the adult population aged 30 years and older. Clinical oral examinations and panoramic radiographs were carried out for 5989 subjects (46% men, 54% women; mean age 52.5, SD 14.6; range 30-97 years). Clinical recordings of the presence of third molars were compared with the radiographs. Statistics included chi-squared, Fisher's, Wilcoxon's, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
In the 5989 subjects, 3742 third molars were recorded in the clinical examination, and 5912 were observed in the panoramic images, a difference of 2170 teeth. Furthermore, related to 3668 (61%) of the third molars, both clinical and radiographic recordings were attributed to the same third molar, while 2244 third molars were observed only in the panoramic image, and 74 only in the clinical examination. In every age group, the mean number of third molars per subject was larger radiographically compared with the clinical recordings (means for all 0.99 vs. 0.62; P < 0.001).
Numbers of third molars, recorded in clinical examination alone, are underreported by approximately one-third compared with radiographic findings.
The numbers of third molars in a population survey without a panoramic radiograph do not reflect the total number of third molars in a population.
本研究旨在比较临床检查和全景片在人群调查中第三磨牙的发现结果，以确定有多少第三磨牙在临床上未被发现。
采用两阶段分层聚类抽样法，选择 8028 名代表 30 岁及以上成年人的人群进行研究。对 5989 名受试者（男 46%，女 54%；平均年龄 52.5，SD 14.6；范围 30-97 岁）进行临床口腔检查和全景片检查。将临床记录的第三磨牙存在情况与影像学检查进行比较。统计分析包括卡方检验、Fisher 确切概率法、Wilcoxon 秩和检验和 Kruskal-Wallis 检验。
在 5989 名受试者中，临床检查记录了 3742 颗第三磨牙，全景片观察到 5912 颗，相差 2170 颗。此外，与 3668 颗（61%）第三磨牙相关，临床和影像学记录均归因于同一颗第三磨牙，而 2244 颗第三磨牙仅在全景片中观察到，74 颗仅在临床检查中观察到。在每个年龄组中，每位受试者的第三磨牙平均数量在影像学检查中均大于临床记录（所有受试者的平均值分别为 0.99 比 0.62；P<0.001）。
与影像学检查结果相比，仅通过临床检查记录的第三磨牙数量少了约三分之一。
没有全景片的人群调查中第三磨牙的数量不能反映人群中第三磨牙的总数。
