RESUMO
OBJECTIVES@#The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the existing classification and difficulty index of impacted mandibular third molars in clinical situations and propose a more practical classification system.@*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#This study included 204 impacted mandibular third molars in 154 patients; panoramic x-ray images were obtained before tooth extraction. Factors including age, sex, and pattern of impaction were investigated. All impacted third molars were classified and scored for spatial relationship (1–5 points), depth (1–4 points), and ramus relationship (1–3 points). All variables were measured twice by the same observer at a minimum interval of one month. Finally, the difficulty index was defined based on the total points scored as slightly difficult (3–4 points), moderately difficult (5–7 points), very difficult (8–10 points), and extremely difficult (11–12 points).@*RESULTS@#The strength of agreement of the total points scored and difficulty index were 0.855 and 0.746, respectively. Most cases were classified as moderately difficult (73.0%). Although only 13 out of 204 cases (6.4%) were classified as extremely difficult, patients classified as extremely difficult were the oldest (P < 0.05).@*CONCLUSION@#For difficulty classification, the authors propose one more difficult category beyond the existing three-step difficulty index: the clinician should consider the patient's age in the difficulty index evaluation.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the existing classification and difficulty index of impacted mandibular third molars in clinical situations and propose a more practical classification system.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 204 impacted mandibular third molars in 154 patients; panoramic x-ray images were obtained before tooth extraction. Factors including age, sex, and pattern of impaction were investigated. All impacted third molars were classified and scored for spatial relationship (1–5 points), depth (1–4 points), and ramus relationship (1–3 points). All variables were measured twice by the same observer at a minimum interval of one month. Finally, the difficulty index was defined based on the total points scored as slightly difficult (3–4 points), moderately difficult (5–7 points), very difficult (8–10 points), and extremely difficult (11–12 points).RESULTS: The strength of agreement of the total points scored and difficulty index were 0.855 and 0.746, respectively. Most cases were classified as moderately difficult (73.0%). Although only 13 out of 204 cases (6.4%) were classified as extremely difficult, patients classified as extremely difficult were the oldest (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION: For difficulty classification, the authors propose one more difficult category beyond the existing three-step difficulty index: the clinician should consider the patient's age in the difficulty index evaluation.