Abstract
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 Worrall1 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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Worrall SF . Are postoperative review appointments necessary following uncomplicated minor oral surgery? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;34: 495.
Pratt CA, Hekmat M, Pratt SD, Zaki GA, Barnard JDW . Controversies in third molar surgery — the national view on review strategies. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;35: 319–322.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Dr Sittitavornwong, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 456 School of Dentistry Building, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham AL 35294, USA. E-mail: sjade@uab.edu
Sittitavornwong S, Waite PD, Holmes JD, Klapow JC. The necessity of routine clinic follow-up visits after third molar removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63:1278–1282
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ainsworth, G. Routine follow-up visits not necessary after third molar removal under sedation. Evid Based Dent 7, 92 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400442
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400442
