Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England logoLink to Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
. 2001 Jan;83(1):61–64.

An audit of general dental practitioners' referral practice following the distribution of third molar guidelines.

S F Worrall 1
PMCID: PMC2503547  PMID: 11212455

Abstract

Oral and maxillofacial surgery waiting lists are amongst the longest of any surgical specialty. The majority of patients on these waiting lists have been referred for removal of their third molars (wisdom teeth). With increasing pressure to reduce the size of both out-patient and surgical waiting lists, it is important to ensure that only those patients with a recognised clinical need are referred and accepted for treatment. In April 1998, local general dental practitioners were issued guidelines for the management of patients with impacted third molars. This paper describes an audit that assessed the impact of this intervention. The results suggest that referral guidelines are an effective means of changing general dental practitioners' referral practice and that, used along with other strategies, could be effective in reducing oral and maxillofacial surgery out-patient and surgical waiting lists.

Full text

PDF
61

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Blackburn C. W., Bramley P. A. Lingual nerve damage associated with the removal of lower third molars. Br Dent J. 1989 Aug 5;167(3):103–107. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bramley P. Sense about wisdoms? J R Soc Med. 1981 Dec;74(12):867–869. doi: 10.1177/014107688107401202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brickley M. R., Shepherd J. P. An investigation of the rationality of lower third molar removal, based on USA National Institutes of Health criteria. Br Dent J. 1996 Apr 6;180(7):249–254. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brickley M., Shepherd J., Mancini G. Comparison of clinical treatment decisions with US National Institutes of Health consensus indications for lower third molar removal. Br Dent J. 1993 Aug 7;175(3):102–105. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Conroy M., Shannon W. Clinical guidelines: their implementation in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Jul;45(396):371–375. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Grol R. Implementing guidelines in general practice care. Qual Health Care. 1992 Sep;1(3):184–191. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.3.184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Leopard P. J. Guidelines for wisdom teeth. Br Dent J. 1996 Jan 20;180(2):52–52. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lomas J., Anderson G. M., Domnick-Pierre K., Vayda E., Enkin M. W., Hannah W. J. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med. 1989 Nov 9;321(19):1306–1311. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198911093211906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moss C. E., Wake M. J. Lingual access for third molar surgery: a 20-year retrospective audit. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Aug;37(4):255–258. doi: 10.1054/bjom.1999.0063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Robinson P. P., Smith K. G. Lingual nerve damage during lower third molar removal: a comparison of two surgical methods. Br Dent J. 1996 Jun 22;180(12):456–461. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rood J. P. Permanent damage to inferior alveolar and lingual nerves during the removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Comparison of two methods of bone removal. Br Dent J. 1992 Feb 8;172(3):108–110. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Schultze-Mosgau S., Reich R. H. Assessment of inferior alveolar and lingual nerve disturbances after dentoalveolar surgery, and of recovery of sensitivity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Aug;22(4):214–217. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80638-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shepherd J. P., Brickley M. Surgical removal of third molars. BMJ. 1994 Sep 10;309(6955):620–621. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6955.620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Song F., Landes D. P., Glenny A. M., Sheldon T. A. Prophylactic removal of impacted third molars: an assessment of published reviews. Br Dent J. 1997 May 10;182(9):339–346. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Worrall S. F. Are postoperative review appointments necessary following uncomplicated minor oral surgery? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Dec;34(6):495–499. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(96)90243-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Worrall S. F., Riden K., Haskell R., Corrigan A. M. UK National Third Molar project: the initial report. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Feb;36(1):14–18. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(98)90740-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. de Boer M. P., Raghoebar G. M., Stegenga B., Schoen P. J., Boering G. Complications after mandibular third molar extraction. Quintessence Int. 1995 Nov;26(11):779–784. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are provided here courtesy of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

RESOURCES