JADA Continuing Education
Third-molar removal patterns in an insured population
STEPHEN A. EKLUND, D.D.S., M.H.S.A., Dr.P.H. and
JAMES L. PITTMAN, D.D.S., M.S.
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Background. The authors examined third-molar removal patterns in an insured population to see how these patterns compare with recommendations in the literature.
Methods. The source of treatment data was insurance claims for services rendered from July 1991 through December 1999; it included approximately 100 million dental procedures provided to about 7.4 million patients from all 50 states. The insured were public and private employees or retirees and their dependents.
Results. The authors found that third molars were the most commonly extracted permanent teeth, and they most often were removed from adolescents. Friday was the day of the week on which most extractions occurred, and the favored month was August, followed by July, December and June. Another important pattern revealed by the authors’ analysis was that there was substantial variation among dental practices in whether patients had third molars removed and in the timing of the removal. They found that adolescent patients in some dental practices rarely were referred for third-molar removal, while in other practices, most or all had third molars removed.
Conclusions. Third-molar removal patterns suggest that many third molars are not removed in response to acute pathology, and the observed variation in the likelihood and timing of these extractions reflects the lack of consensus on this topic in the dental literature.
Clinical Implications. The apparent lack of consensus on third-molar removal should be resolved for the profession to maintain the confidence of the public that the recommended care is based on sound evidence.
There is a long-standing debate about the desirability of extracting pathology-free impacted third molars. Some authors argue that any third molar that is not likely to erupt fully is pathological and should be removed.1–3 Others, who generally recommend some selectivity regarding third-molar removal, have provided criteria, some of which are ambiguous.4–8 Still other authors argue that removal of any nonpathological body part is misguided and have taken positions opposing or seriously questioning the practice of the routine removal of asymptomatic third molars.9–22 Finally, some authors have reported on the continuing lack of agreement among dentists in terms of their decisions on the treatment of third molars, recommending that further studies be conducted and that the issue be resolved.23–29
There was substantial variation among dental practices in whether patients had third molars removed and in the timing of the removal.
While the amount of literature in this area is large, the extent of the uncertainty is demonstrated by just a few key references. In 1979, the National Institutes of Health held a consensus conference on the removal of third molars.10 At that conference, the literature and evidence up to that time were reviewed, and expert testimony was received. On that basis, the committee members agreed that third molars with nonrestorable carious lesions, recurrent infection, cysts and tumors, as well as those contributing to the resorption of adjacent teeth and destruction of bone, are candidates for removal. Removal of third molars to prevent crowding of anterior teeth was not supported. There was, however, no consensus on removal of impacted teeth when there is no evidence of pathology. It was agreed that even though early removal might reduce morbidity, further studies were needed and that the economic implications also needed more study.
In 1996, Daley20 published an extensive article on third-molar extraction based on a comprehensive review of the literature. Daley stated that "... third molars without associated pathological or developmental conditions are sacrificed, usually in adolescents and young adults, like no other human tissue, in the name of preventive dental care." He went on to conclude that "in more than 98 percent of cases, there is no apparent benefit to prophylactic third-molar extraction in adolescents. The concept that all third molars (functional or nonfunctional) should be extracted prophylactically should be abandoned."
The ADA’s 1997 Dental Practice Parameters7 includes a section on impacted and unerupted teeth. It provides no specific criteria, nor does it directly address the third-molar controversy. It provides only the rather ambiguous statement that "after consideration of the individual circumstances, the dentist should decide whether the impacted/unerupted tooth should be monitored or treated."
A genuine uncertainty exists as to the most appropriate course of action for pathology-free impacted third molars.
Guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry are similarly nonspecific.8 In the guidelines’ 1998–1999 revision, it is recommended that "third molars which are determined to be potential or active problems should be considered for treatment by the appropriately trained dentist. Diagnostic criteria for extraction should be those currently accepted by the dental profession."
A 1998 article on impacted teeth published by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons makes it clear that in the Academy’s view, "All impacted teeth are pathologic processes ... ," and the article claims that "... scientific evidence [shows that] impacted teeth are a pathological entity and surgical management is the treatment of choice."3
A markedly different conclusion, also claiming to be based on the current state of the science, was arrived at in 1999 by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or NICE, in the United Kingdom.30,31 NICE conducted a review to provide guidance to the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, or NHS, on the removal of third molars. The stated aim of the review was "to provide a summary of existing evidence on prophylactic removal of impacted wisdom teeth, in terms of the incidence of surgical complications associated with prophylactic removal, and the morbidity associated with retention." This report concluded that "there is no reliable research evidence to support the prophylactic removal of pathology-free impacted third molars." Based on this report, the NHS has advised dentists in England and Wales that "the routine practice of prophylactic removal of pathology-free impacted third molars should be discontinued in the NHS." The report also states that "surgical removal of impacted third molars should be limited to patients with evidence of pathology. Such pathology includes unrestorable caries, nontreatable pulpal and/or periapical pathology, cellulitis, abcess and osteomyelitis, internal/external resorption of the tooth or adjacent teeth, fracture of the tooth, disease of follicle including cyst/tumor, tooth/teeth impeding surgery or reconstructive jaw surgery, and when a tooth is involved in or within the field of tumor resection." The report further states that plaque is not an indication for surgery, and that "the evidence suggests that a first episode of pericoronitis, unless particularly severe, should not be considered an indication for surgery."
These examples highlight the fact that genuine uncertainty exists as to the most appropriate course of action for pathology-free impacted third molars. We conducted this study to see whether this uncertainty in the dental literature is reflected in clinical practice. While acknowledging that this debate continues, we do not attempt to suggest what the best approach is, but rather attempt to describe current practice in more detail than has been possible previously.
|
METHODS
|
|---|
The source of treatment data for this article is insurance claims filed with Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, or DDPM, and its subsidiaries for treatment provided from July 1991 through December 1999. During this period, DDPM processed claims for approximately 100 million procedures provided to about 7.4 million patients. Claims were received from all 50 states. More than 3.8 million of these patients were Michigan residents, nearly 1 million were from Ohio, more than 500,000 were from Indiana, and more than 2 million were from states other than Michigan, Ohio or Indiana. The covered people were employees or retirees and their dependents, and included a wide range of employees in public and private employment.
For the data included in this analysis, the treating dentists received fee-for-service payment, and payment levels most commonly were 100 percent for diagnostic and preventive services and 80 to 90 percent for most restorative and oral surgical services. There were no special limitations pertaining to third molars. Throughout the period of this study, coverage did not change in any major way that would be expected to affect patterns of third-molar removal. We conducted individual analyses using further subsets of these claims data; for example, continuously insured people in the longitudinal analyses and subgroups of various ages in many of the analyses. We detail these subsets and their corresponding results in the next section.
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Figure 1
shows why the issue of third molars is of interest. In 1999, third molars were the most commonly extracted permanent teeth in DDPM-insured patients who resided both in and outside Michigan. In fact, among the 1,846,083 continuously insured people who resided in Michigan during 1999, third-molar extractions accounted for 89,846 (45.3 percent) of the 198,215 permanent teeth extracted. Outside Michigan, among 1,551,000 continuously insured people, third molars accounted for 56,449 (31.6 percent) of the 178,799 permanent teeth extracted. The difference in these percentages primarily is the result of differences in the age mix of patients between the two groups; Michigan had a somewhat higher proportion of adolescent beneficiaries. Figure 2 shows the number of third-molar extractions per patient; demonstrates that in both Michigan and the rest of the country, the overwhelming majority of these third molars were extracted from patients 15 to 25 years of age, peaking at age 18 years; and shows that the patterns were virtually the same between Michigan and the rest of the country when age was controlled for.
View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Average number of third-molar extractions per patient (range 0–4) by age in Michigan and non-Michigan residents, 1999.
| |
Given the evidence that third molars are the most commonly extracted teeth and that most of these extractions occur in adolescents, we next looked at the patterns of these extractions in adolescents to further understand the pattern of third-molar removal. Our results are based on 192,880 DDPM-insured people from across the United States who were 16 to 21 years of age in 1999 and were covered for all of 1999. Of these patients, 12.4 percent (23,953) had tooth extractions during 1999, and 91.8 percent (21,979) of those who had extractions had their third molars extracted. Of all 81,216 teeth extracted in this group during 1999, 94.5 percent (76,722 teeth) were third molars.
Regarding the pattern of these extractions, Friday was the preferred day of the week for extractions, and Figure 3 demonstrates that the favored month was August, followed by July, December and June. In December 1999, the peak days for third-molar extraction were the Monday before Christmas and the Monday and Tuesday between Christmas and New Year’s Day; these days were the three days in 1999 with the highest number of third-molar extractions.
Longitudinal analysis of third-molar removal.
We obtained another view of the third-molar removal patterns by following insured children who were born in 1978, over the 8.5-year period from July 1991 through December 1999. During this period, these adolescents aged from approximately 13 to 21 years of age.
We limited these longitudinal analyses to patients from Michigan, because it was the only state for which we had large numbers of people who were continuously insured since at least 1991. Also, only in Michigan were the numbers sufficient to allow for inferences about referral patterns for individual dental practitioners.
Claims data from 13,343 of these 1978 birth cohort patients, who were continuously insured during the entire 8.5-year period, show that 5,929 (44.4 percent) had one or more third molars removed. The table shows further that during this 8.5-year period, 80.4 percent of those who had third-molar extractions had all four teeth removed, and of these 94.4 percent had all four teeth removed in a single visit.
Patterns at the dental practice level.
We conducted an analysis that focused on adolescent patients within individual dental practices. For this analysis, we first identified patients who were born from 1977 through 1981 and who were insured continuously from July 1991 through December 1999. There were 68,662 such people in Michigan. Of these, 65,565 (95.5 percent) had at least one claim for care of any type within the 8.5-year study period.
Because our focus for this part of the analysis was dental practices, we further limited the analysis to patients who received all of their routine care from only one general or pediatric dentist. In this way, we were able to characterize the patterns of referral for specialty care (in this case, third-molar extraction), according to the referring general or pediatric dentist; approximately 90 percent of third-molar extractions were performed by oral surgeons. As 33,144 of these patients each received their routine care from one dentist, we could appropriately associate each of their patterns of care with a single dentist. We further limited the analysis to dentists who treated at least 10 of these patients, to ensure that the patterns of care attributed to them were based on more than a few patients. The result was that we were able to analyze the patterns of third-molar removal among 22,356 adolescents in 1,048 dental practices, and the practice patterns were based on an average of 21.3 patients per practice.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of these 1,048 dental practices by percentage of adolescent patients who had third molars removed during the 8.5-year period. For example, Figure 4 shows that in 75 dental practices, 10 percent or fewer of the insured adolescent patients had their third molars extracted during the 8.5-year period. In fact, in 22 of these 75 practices, none of the insured adolescents had their third molars removed. At the other end of the spectrum, in 57 practices more than 70 percent of the adolescent patients had their third molars removed. Most practices were somewhere between these extremes.
View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Distribution of 1,048 dental practices in Michigan by percentage of adolescent patients who had third-molar extractions from July 1991 through December 1999.
| |
Among the 1,026 practices in which at least some of the adolescent patients had their third molars removed, there was variation in the average age of removal. While Figure 5 shows that the average age in most practices was 17 to 18 years, it also shows that in 171 practices (16.7 percent), the average age of third-molar removal was 16 years or younger, while in 111 practices (10.8 percent) the average age at time of third-molar removal was 19 years or older. The potential importance of this age difference at time of third-molar removal is shown in Figure 6, which reveals a strong association between age and apparent difficulty of extraction (as inferred from procedure code and associated fee). In both the maxilla and the mandible, third-molar extraction at younger ages is associated with procedure codes representing greater difficulty and higher fees. In both Figure 4
and Figure 5, the clustering of patients within practices is unlikely to have occurred by chance, with P < .0001 in both instances.
View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Distribution of 1,026 dental practices in Michigan by average age of adolescent patients when they had their third molars extracted.
| |
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. Percentage of third-molar extractions that are partial or full bony impactions (procedure codes 7230, 7240 and 7241), by age of patient.
| |
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
The patterns of third-molar removal that are revealed by our analysis of insurance claims data strongly suggest that a substantial percentage of adolescent third-molar extractions are done on an elective basis. The fact that the summer months and December are the most common months for third-molar removal indicates that many of these extractions are not for treatment of an acute condition. Furthermore, while in the overwhelming majority of instances all four third molars are removed, it seems unlikely that all four teeth are pathologically involved at the same time.
Another important pattern that was revealed by our analysis is that there is substantial variation among dental practices in whether their patients have their third molars removed and in the timing of removal. It appears that adolescent patients in some dental practices rarely are referred for third-molar removal, while in others most or all adolescent patients have their third molars removed. In addition, while the average age of third-molar removal is 18 years, in some practices the average is several years younger, while in still others it is several years older. This difference in the average age at which third molars are removed has implications for the cost of the procedure and presumably for the difficulty of the extractions. Almost all of the third molars extracted from patients 16 years of age or younger are submitted with the procedure codes 7230, 7240 or 7241, which are for extractions that are full or partial bony impactions. In contrast, in patients just a few years older, the mix shifts to less expensive, and presumably less difficult, procedures.
While almost 90 percent of third molars are removed by oral surgeons, it clearly is the general practitioners and pediatric dentists who are responsible for making the referrals to these specialists.
These results also support many earlier suggestions in the literature of revisiting the question about removal of pathology-free third molars. While almost 90 percent of third molars are removed by oral surgeons, it clearly is the general practitioners and pediatric dentists who are responsible for making the referrals to these specialists. These insurance claims demonstrate that there is wide divergence in and a lack of consensus as to whether or not dentists recommend that their patients have their third molars removed and the age at which they recommend that these teeth be removed.
This variation is important because it is reasonable to infer several fundamentally different referral patterns from these data. Some providers seem to refer all, or nearly all, of their adolescent patients for third-molar removal. It seems unlikely that all of these patients, especially those younger than 17 years of age, have active pathology associated with all four third molars. In other practices, referral for third-molar extractions appears to be much less common, and in others it is rare. Because the vast majority of these extractions are referred to specialists, the referring dentist does not have a direct economic stake in the decision. We reasonably assume that the decision to refer is based largely on each dentist’s perception of the trade-off between the risks, discomfort and costs associated with early removal and the potential risks, discomfort and costs associated with retention of these teeth. If the argument is to be made that either approach is defensible, then an obvious question arises as to why one would not choose the alternative that has the lowest cost and subjects the fewest people to surgical procedures.
|
LIMITATIONS
|
|---|
It is important to acknowledge that this study is limited to an insured population. We believe that it would be interesting to compare these findings with the current patterns of treatment for noninsured people. Although dental benefit coverage should not determine treatment decisions, the peak age of 18 years for removal of third molars also may be associated with the potential loss of dental coverage for those who lose dependent status because of leaving school.
|
CONCLUSIONS
|
|---|
The controversy over routine removal of pathology-free third molars continues. In this article, it was not our intent to suggest which is the best approach, but rather to show practice as it exists for a large group of insured people. The range of opinion is wide, from removal of only pathologically involved third molars, according to narrow definitions of what constitutes pathology, to removing all four teeth at an early age, even before eruption would normally occur.
These diverse opinions reflect the range of practice of general practitioners, as they are the ones who control the system through their referral patterns. The apparent lack of consensus should be resolved so the profession can maintain the public’s confidence that the recommended care is based on sound evidence.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
Dr. Eklund is an associate professor, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Program in Dental Public Health, and is a consultant to Delta Dental Plan of Michigan. Address reprint requests to Dr. Eklund at University of Michigan School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Program in Dental Public Health, 109 S. Observatory St., Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109-2029, e-mail "saeklund{at}umich.edu".
Dr. Pittman, St. Joseph, Mich., is a consultant to Delta Dental Plan of Michigan.
This study was partially supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant RO3 HS09554.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Lytle JJ. The case for third molar removal. J Calif Dent Assoc 1977;5:42–4.[Medline]
- Waite PD, Reynolds RR. Surgical management of impacted third molars. Semin Orthod 1998;4:113–23.[Medline]
- American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Impacted teeth. Oral Health 1998;88:31–2.[Medline]
- Hagen JO. ‘Let sleeping dogs lie’–why? J South Calif Dent Assoc 1971;39:110–4.[Medline]
- Laskin DM. Evaluation of the third molar problem. JADA 1971; 82:824–8.
- Shira RB. Preventive oral surgery. Prev Med 1976;5:360–75.[Medline]
- Dental practice parameters. Revised. Chicago: American Dental Association; 1997:55.
- Guidelines for oral health for the adolescent: reference manual. Pediatr Dent 1998;20(special issue):34.
- Friedman JW. The case for preservation of third molars. CDA J 1977;5:50–6.
- National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference summaries: Removal of third molars. Vol. 2. Bethesda, Md.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health; 1979.
- Friedman JW. Containing the cost of third-molar extractions: a dilemma for health insurance. Public Health Rep 1983;98:376–84.[Medline]
- Bishara SE, Andreasen G. Third molars: a review. Am J Orthod 1983;83:131–7.[Medline]
- Tulloch JF, Antczak-Bouckoms AA. Decision analysis in the evaluation of clinical strategies for the management of mandibular third molars. J Dent Educ 1987;51:652–60.[Abstract]
- Tulloch JFC, Antczk AA, Wilkes JW. The application of decision analysis to evaluate the need for extraction of asymptomatic third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;45:855–63.[Medline]
- Stephens RG, Kogon SL, Reid JA. The unerupted or impacted third molar: a critical appraisal of its pathologic potential. J Can Dent Assoc 1989;55:201–7.[Medline]
- Tulloch JF, Antczak-Bouckoms AA, Ung N. Evaluation of the costs and relative effectiveness of alternative strategies for removal of mandibular third molars. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6:505–15.[Medline]
- Peterson LJ. Rationale for removing impacted teeth: when to extract or not to extract. JADA 1992;123:198–204.
- Shepherd JP. The third molar epidemic. Br Dent J 1993;174:85.[Medline]
- Ganss C, Hochban W, Kielbassa AM, Umstadt HE. Prognosis of third molar eruption. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993;76:688–93.[Medline]
- Daley TD. Third molar prophylactic extraction: a review and analysis of the literature. Gen Dent 1996;44:310–20.[Medline]
- Song F, Landes DP, Glenny AM, Sheldon TA. Prophylactic removal of impacted third molars: an assessment of published reviews. Br Dent J 1997;182:339–46.[Medline]
- Anderson M. Removal of asymptomatic third molars: indications, contraindications, risks and benefits. J Indiana Dent Assoc 1998;77:41–6.[Medline]
- Mercier P, Precious D. Risk and benefits of removal of impacted third molars: a critical review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 1992;21:17–27.
- Knutsson K, Brehmer B, Lysell L, Rohlin M. General dental practitioners’ evaluation of the need for extraction of asymptomatic mandibular third molars. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:347–50.[Medline]
- Lysell L, Brehmer B, Knutsson K, Rohlin M. Judgement on removal of asymptomatic mandibular third molars: influence of the perceived likelihood of pathology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993;22:173–7.[Abstract]
- Brickley M, Shepherd J, Mancini G. Comparison of clinical treatment decisions with U.S. National Institutes of Health consensus indications for lower third molar removal. Br Dent J 1993;175:102–5.[Medline]
- Hazelkorn HM, Macek MD. Perception of the need for removal of impacted third molars by general dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:681–7.[Medline]
- Antczak-Bouckoms A, Tulloch JF. Editorial: towards improving third molar extraction decisions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994;23:67–8.[Medline]
- Antczak-Bouckoms A, Tulloch JF. Update on technology assessment in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent 1992;2:10–4.[Medline]
- NICE issues guidance to the NHS on the removal of wisdom teeth. Available at: "server1.nice.org.uk/nice-web/Article.asp?a=533&ss=teeth". Accessed July 11, 2000.
- Song F, O’Meara S, Wilson P, Kleijnen J, Golder S. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth: Report commissioned by the NHS HTA programme on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. York, England: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 1999.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
G.J. Huang, M.T. Drangsholt, T.C. Rue, D.C. Cruikshank, and K.A. Hobson
Age and Third Molar Extraction as Risk Factors for Temporomandibular Disorder
Journal of Dental Research,
March 1, 2008;
87(3):
283 - 287.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
METHODS
