EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 29 / No 1 (2023) J Oral Med Oral Surg, 29 1 (2023) 5 References
Open Access
Issue
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 29, Number 1, 2023
Article Number 5
Number of page(s) 5
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2023006
Published online 03 February 2023
  1. Al-Dajani M, Abouonq AO, Almohammadi TA, Alruwaili MK, Alswilem RO, Alzoubi IA. A cohort study of the patterns of third molar impaction in panoramic radiographs in Saudi population. Open Dent J 2017;11:648. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kaya GŞ, Aslan M, Omezli MM, Dayi E. Some morphological features related to mandibular third molar impaction. J Clin Exp Dent 2010;2:e12–e17. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hashemipour MA, Tahmasbi-Arashlow M, Fahimi-Hanzaei F. Incidence of impacted mandibular and maxillary third molars: a radiographic study in a Southeast Iran population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18:e140. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Marciani RD. Third molar removal: an overview of indications, imaging, evaluation, and assessment of risk. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2007;19:1–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brasil DM, Nascimento EH, Gaêta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos C, de Almeida SM. Is panoramic imaging equivalent to cone-beam computed tomography for classifying impacted lower third molars? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1968–1974. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jain N, Thomas S, Prabhu S, Jain S, Pathak AD, Pillai A, Satpathy M. Influence of tooth sectioning technique and various risk factors in reducing the IAN injury following surgical removal of an impacted mandibular third molar. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;20:149–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. de Melo LP, Oenning AC, Nadaes MR, Nejaim Y, Neves FS, Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ. Influence of acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars through cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017;124:183–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhang X, Wang L, Gao Z, Li J, Shan Z. Development of a new index to assess the difficulty level of surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars in an Asian Population. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1358e1–1358e8. [Google Scholar]
  9. Al-Samman AA. Evaluation of Kharma scale as a predictor of lower third molar extraction difficulty. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2017;22:e796–e799. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Garcı́a AG, Sampedro FG, Rey JG, Vila PG, Martin MS. Pell-Gregory classification is unreliable as a predictor of difficulty in extracting impacted lower third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38:585–587. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Diniz-Freitas M, Lago-Méndez L, Gude-Sampedro F, Somoza-Martin JM, Gándara-Rey JM, García-García A. Pederson scale fails to predict how difficult it will be to extract lower third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:23–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. de Carvalho RW, Vasconcelos BC. Pernambuco index: predictability of the complexity of surgery for impacted lower third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47:234–240. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–349. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Carvalho RW, do Egito Vasconcelos BC. Assessment of factors associated with surgical difficulty during removal of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:2714–2721. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bhansali SP, Bhansali S, Tiwari A. Review of difficulty indices for removal of impacted third molars and a new classification of difficulty indices. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2021;20:167–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Renton T, Smeeton N, McGurk M. Factors predictive of difficulty of mandibular third molar surgery. Br Dent J 2001;190:607–610. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kharma MY, Sakka S, Aws G, Tarakji B, Nassani MZ. Reliability of Pederson scale in surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars: proposal of new scale. J Oral Diseases 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/157523. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sammartino G, Gasparro R, Marenzi G, Trosino O, Mariniello M, Riccitiello F. Extraction of mandibular third molars: proposal of a new scale of difficulty. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;55:952–957. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sánchez-Torres A, Soler-Capdevila J, Ustrell-Barral M, Gay-Escoda C. Patient, radiological, and operative factors associated with surgical difficulty in the extraction of third molars: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;49:655–665. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bali A, Bali D, Sharma A, Verma G. Is Pederson index a true predictive difficulty index for impacted mandibular third molar surgery? A meta-analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2013;12:359–364. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Barreiro-Torres J, Diniz-Freitas M, Lago-Méndez L, Gude-Sampedro F, Gándara-Rey JM, García-García A. Evaluation of the surgical difficulty in lower third molar extraction. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e869–e874. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Roy I, Baliga SD, Louis A, Rao S. Importance of clinical and radiological parameters in assessment of surgical difficulty in removal of impacted mandibular 3rd molars: A new index. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14:745–749. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.