Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The study examined treatment codes of extracted teeth and aimed to assess degree of difficulty concerning all tooth extractions.
Materials and methods
Retrospective data on treatment codes of all tooth extractions during a two-year period were obtained from the patient register in primary oral healthcare of the City of Helsinki, Finland. Prevalence, indication, and method of extraction appeared in the treatment codes (EBA-codes). Degree of difficulty was determined from the method and classified as non-operative or operative and as routine or demanding. Statistics included frequencies, percentages, and χ2 test.
Results
Total number of extraction procedures was 97,276, including 121,342 extracted teeth. The most frequent procedure was a routine extraction of a tooth with forceps (55%, n = 53,642). The main reason for extraction was caries (27%, n = 20,889). Of the extractions, 79% (n = 76,435) were non-operative, 13% (n = 12,819) operative, and 8% (n = 8,022) multiple extractions in one visit. Level of difficulty was distributed as routine non-operative (63%), demanding non-operative (15%), routine operative (12%), demanding operative (2%), and multiple extractions (8%).
Conclusions
Two-thirds of all tooth extractions in primary care were relatively simple. However, 29% of procedures were classified as demanding.
Clinical relevance
As earlier methods for assessing level of difficulty were aimed at third molars alone, an analysis was presented for all tooth extractions. This approach may be useful for research purposes, and the profile of tooth extractions and their difficulty level may be practical also for decision-makers in primary care.
Funder
University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference30 articles.
1. Winter GB (1926) Principles of exodontia as applied to the impacted mandibular third molar. American Medical Book Company, St. Louis. https://archive.org/details/b2981974x. Accessed 10 May 2023
2. Pell GJ, Gregory GT (1933) Impacted mandibular third molars: classification and modified technique for removal. Dent Dig 39:330–337. https://www.bristolctoralsurgery.com/files/2015/03/Pell-and-Gregory-Classification-1933.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2023
3. Yoo JH, Yeom HG, Shin W, Yun JP, Lee JH, Jeong SH, Lim HJ, Lee J, Kim BC (2021) Deep learning based prediction of extraction difficulty for mandibular third molars. Sci Rep 11:1954. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81449-4
4. Sammartino G, Gasparro R, Marenzi G, Trosino O, Mariniello M, Riccitiello F (2017) Extraction of mandibular third molars: proposal of a new scale of difficulty. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:952–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.09.012
5. de Carvalho RW, Vasconcelos BC (2018) Pernambuco index: predictability of the complexity of surgery for impacted lower third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47:234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.013
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献