Assessing current clinical eruption stage of mandibular third molars by dental panoramic radiography.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether dental panoramic radiography (PAN) can be used to identify the clinical stage of eruption of mandibular third molars at the time of radiological examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data included records from clinical oral examination and PANs of university students. In the retrospective analysis of 345 mandibular third molars in 189 participants (20% men, 80% women; mean age 20.7 years; standard deviation [SD] ± 0.6), clinical stages of eruption were compared with their radiographic depth in bone, inclination, and root development. Statistics included χ2, Mann-Whitney U tests, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Significant (p < 0.001) predictor variables for assessing the clinical stage of eruption were radiographic depth in bone and inclination. All teeth radiologically at a depth of the cementoenamel (CE) junction of the neighbouring second molar or deeper were clinically unerupted. Above the CE junction, 80% of vertical and 97% of distoangular teeth were connected to the oral cavity, and 82% of mesioangular and 69% of horizontal teeth were clinically unerupted. CONCLUSION: All teeth below or at the CE junction are clinically unerupted. Above the CE junction, stage of eruption should be assessed together with the inclination, but horizontally inclined teeth are recommended to be verified clinically.

Is dental panoramic tomography appropriate for all young adults because of third molars?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine, if a dental panoramic tomograph (DPT) is appropriate for every young adult due to third molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 217 university students (20% men and 80% women; mean age 20.7 years; SD ± 0.6 years) and included a questionnaire about symptoms caused by third molars, clinical oral examination of third molars, and a DPT. Subjects were divided into the following groups: subjects with a clinical indication for a DPT and subjects without such indication. The DPTs were then examined for findings regarding third molars. RESULTS: Clinical indication for a DPT was observed in 64% of the subjects. Radiography revealed an additional 1.4% of the subjects with ≥1 radiographic signs of disease in relation to their third molars. Also, an additional 27% of the subjects had ≥1 other radiographic findings in relation to third molars that may have affected the clinical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, clinically undetectable pathology cannot be considered as an indication for a DPT. However, if prevailing clinical practice supports preventive removals and detecting or monitoring of unerupted third molars, a referral to DPT can be considered as good clinical practice.