| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Knutsson, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Pathoses associated with mandibular third molars subjected to removal
- 1996
-
Ingår i: ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS. - : MOSBY-YEAR BOOK INC. ; 82:1
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Objectives. To measure the prevalence oi disease of mandibular third molars referred for removal and to estimate the risk for development of pathoses for two cues. Study design. A prospective cohort study on molars subjected to removal was performed. The
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Liedholm, Rolf, et al.
(författare)
-
Mandibular third molars : oral surgeons' assessment of the indications for removal
- 1999
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. - : British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. - 0266-4356 .- 1532-1940. ; 37:6, s. 440-443
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim was to examine oral surgeons' assessment of the indications for removal of mandibular third molars. Questionnaires were distributed to seven oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics. The oral surgeons were asked to record whether or not there was associated disease. Three other factors were recorded: patient's age, and angular position and extent of eruption of the molars. The strength of the indication for removal was rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) where 0 = weakest and 100 = strongest indication for removal. The results were based on data from 666 molars: 118 (18%) had no disease, 465 (70%) had one associated disease, 77 (11%) had two and 6 (1%) had three. The indication for removal as expressed by the mean VAS for molars with no disease was assessed to be weaker (P < 0.05) than that for molars with one, two, or three diseases. The only; factor that influenced the indication for removal in molars with no disease was the patient's age.
|
|
| 10. |
- Liedholm, Rolf, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient flows in the care process of mandibular third molar surgery
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Swedish Dental Journal. - 0347-9994. ; 29:3, s. 97-104
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Our aim was to describe patient flows in mandibular third molar surgery at ora I and maxillofacial specialist units. Our hypothesis was that there are variations in how care is delivered and that the variations could be explained by inter-individual variations in surgeons' practice,the quality of the radiographs appended to the referral, and the staffing of the specialist units. A flow chart was constructed to simulate all possible patient flows in the care process. The chart begins with treatment planning, which was drawn up based on documents from the referring dentist or another caregiver; continues with the care process at the oral and maxillofacial surgery unit, including surgical consultations and radiological examinations; and ends with surgery. Surgeons at four oral and maxillofacial surgery units in the National Health Service in southern Sweden participated. The intention was to collect data on at least 100 patients who had undergone mandibular third molar surgery at each unit. Data on 361 patients were collected. The radiographs appended to the referral were judged to be inappropriate for the majority of the patients (61%). For 13% of these patients, supplementary radiographic examinations were made at the radiology clinic included in the unit,whilst 48% were examined at the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. There were eight different patient flow patterns. In one unit with three surgeons, eight different flow patterns were recorded, indicating an interindividual variation among the surgeons. In a second unit, six different flow patterns were recorded. In the last two units, the patient flows appeared to be the same at each unit, although the predominant patient flows in these two units differed. The number of patient visits to the specialist units ranged between one and three. In three specialist units, most patients were called twice whilst in one specialist unit most patients were called only once, to have the third molar removed. Differences existed in the care process. Overall, the number of patient visits seemed not to depend on whether the preoperative radiographic examination was judged to be appropriate or whether the additional radiographs were made at the radiology clinic.
|
|
