Relationship between Presence of Third Molars and Prevalence of Periodontal Pathology of Adjacent Second Molars: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Yang Yang, Yi Tian, Li Juan Sun, Honglei Qu, Fang Chen
{"title":"Relationship between Presence of Third Molars and Prevalence of Periodontal Pathology of Adjacent Second Molars: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Yang Yang, Yi Tian, Li Juan Sun, Honglei Qu, Fang Chen","doi":"10.3290/j.cjdr.b2752683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo estimate the mean prevalence of periodontal pathology of adjacent second molars (A-M2s) to third molars (M3s) and identify related confounding factors.\n\n\nMETHODS\nStudies published before August 2020 were systematically searched in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. We included cross-sectional studies that evaluated the periodontal pathology of A-M2s based on clinical or radiographic examinations at the molar level. Studies employing similar periodontal parameters were pooled. Clinical attachment loss ≥ 3 mm, alveolar bone loss ≥ 3 mm or ≥ 20% root length were defined as early periodontal defects, and at least one site with probing depth ≥ 5 mm was considered as deep periodontal pockets around A-M2s in the data synthesis.\n\n\nRESULTS\nNine studies (14,749 M3s) were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. On average, 19% of A-M2s showed distal early periodontal defects with the presence of M3s (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 9%-35%). Subgroup analyses suggested the prevalence was 32% (95% CI 16%-54%) in the mandible, and the prevalence was higher with nonimpacted M3s (25%, 95% CI 12%-47%) than with impacted M3s (19%, 95% CI 10%-35%). Additionally, the pooled prevalence for deep periodontal pockets around A-M2s was 52% (95% CI 39%-64%). Subgroup analyses suggested the prevalence was higher in the mandible (62%, 95% CI 45%-76%) than in the maxilla (43%, 95% CI 31%-56%), and for nonimpacted M3s the prevalence reached 50% (95% CI 36%-64%).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe presence of M3s, especially mandibular and nonimpacted M3s, negatively affects the periodontal status of A-M2s.","PeriodicalId":22405,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association","volume":"39 1","pages":"45-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.cjdr.b2752683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To estimate the mean prevalence of periodontal pathology of adjacent second molars (A-M2s) to third molars (M3s) and identify related confounding factors. METHODS Studies published before August 2020 were systematically searched in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. We included cross-sectional studies that evaluated the periodontal pathology of A-M2s based on clinical or radiographic examinations at the molar level. Studies employing similar periodontal parameters were pooled. Clinical attachment loss ≥ 3 mm, alveolar bone loss ≥ 3 mm or ≥ 20% root length were defined as early periodontal defects, and at least one site with probing depth ≥ 5 mm was considered as deep periodontal pockets around A-M2s in the data synthesis. RESULTS Nine studies (14,749 M3s) were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. On average, 19% of A-M2s showed distal early periodontal defects with the presence of M3s (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 9%-35%). Subgroup analyses suggested the prevalence was 32% (95% CI 16%-54%) in the mandible, and the prevalence was higher with nonimpacted M3s (25%, 95% CI 12%-47%) than with impacted M3s (19%, 95% CI 10%-35%). Additionally, the pooled prevalence for deep periodontal pockets around A-M2s was 52% (95% CI 39%-64%). Subgroup analyses suggested the prevalence was higher in the mandible (62%, 95% CI 45%-76%) than in the maxilla (43%, 95% CI 31%-56%), and for nonimpacted M3s the prevalence reached 50% (95% CI 36%-64%). CONCLUSION The presence of M3s, especially mandibular and nonimpacted M3s, negatively affects the periodontal status of A-M2s.
第三磨牙的存在与相邻第二磨牙牙周病变的关系:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的评估邻近第二磨牙(A-M2s)至第三磨牙(M3s)牙周病理的平均患病率,并确定相关混杂因素。方法系统检索Cochrane Library、EMBASE和MEDLINE数据库中2020年8月前发表的研究。我们纳入了基于临床或放射学检查在磨牙水平评估A-M2s牙周病理的横断面研究。采用相似牙周参数的研究进行汇总。临床附着体缺失≥3mm、牙槽骨缺失≥3mm或牙根长度≥20%定义为早期牙周缺损,在数据综合中,A-M2s周围至少有一个探探深度≥5mm的部位被认为是深度牙周袋。结果9项研究(14749 m3)最终被纳入meta分析。平均而言,19%的A-M2s表现为远端早期牙周缺损,伴有M3s的存在(95%可信区间[95% CI] 9%-35%)。亚组分析显示,下颌骨的患病率为32% (95% CI为16%-54%),未嵌套的M3s的患病率(25%,95% CI为12%-47%)高于嵌套的M3s (19%, 95% CI为10%-35%)。此外,A-M2s周围深度牙周袋的总患病率为52% (95% CI 39%-64%)。亚组分析显示,下颌骨的患病率(62%,95% CI 45%-76%)高于上颌骨(43%,95% CI 31%-56%),而非嵌塞的M3s患病率达到50% (95% CI 36%-64%)。结论M3s的存在对A-M2s的牙周状态有负面影响,尤其是下颌和非埋伏M3s。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信