| Routine follow-up visits not necessary after third molar removal under sedation. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 17187035 Owner: NLM Status: PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
DESIGN: This was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in the US. INTERVENTION: People were recruited to the trial who required surgical removal of at least two impacted third molars under intravenous sedation on an outpatient basis. They were treated by board-certified oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Participants were divided randomly into two groups: the first was given a 2-week postoperative follow-up appointment, and the other had no follow-up. All patients received postoperative instructions and were contacted by telephone on the day after surgery. At 2 weeks postoperatively, all patients either returned to the clinic or were interviewed by telephone. OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients were asked to answer a questionnaire on postoperative day 1 and at 2 weeks after their treatment. The questionnaire was originally proposed by Worrall(1) but was modified for use in this study. RESULTS: Of the 60 consecutive patients who underwent third molar removal, only 48 were included. The mean age was 20 years (range, 15-33 years). There were no significant differences in the number of patients and gender between the groups receiving clinic or telephone follow-up. Seventy-three per cent (35 out of 48) out of all the patients preferred telephone follow-up, and 27% (13 out of 48) of patients preferred clinic follow-up. Eighty-five per cent (29 out of 34) of patients who did not have any complaints on postoperative day 1 preferred telephone follow-up (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A routine follow-up visit following third molar removal under intravenous sedation is not necessary in patients aged between 15 and 35 years. Pre-operative and postoperative instructions should be clear, however. A selective review policy may be appropriate if a patient is mentally retarded, is taking psychoactive drugs, or has an intra-operative complications or a has made a complaint via telephone. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Gillian Ainsworth |
Related Documents
:
|
7386185 - A longterm isotope renography follow-up of patients following pregnancy complicated by ... 8496645 - Radiotherapy and complications of laryngectomy. 6939115 - Partial gastrectomy for peptic ulcer by the krønlein method. long term results 12 year... 23064425 - Scleral buckle removal in the vitrectomy era: a 20-year clinical experience. 11574345 - Epidural analgesia reduces postoperative myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. 16021015 - Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complicat... |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Comment; Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Evidence-based dentistry Volume: 7 ISSN: 1462-0049 ISO Abbreviation: Evid Based Dent Publication Date: 2006 |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2006-12-25 Completed Date: 2007-01-17 Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 100883603 Medline TA: Evid Based Dent Country: England |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 92 Citation Subset: - |
Affiliation:
|
Department of Oral Surgery, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
| Comments/Corrections | |
Comment On:
|
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Sep;63(9):1278-82
[PMID:
16122590
]
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Conscious sedation guidance.
Next Document: Chlorhexidine varnish has caries-reducing potential.