Routine review of patients after extraction of third molars: is it justified?
A prospective study of 80 patients undergoing the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar teeth under general anaesthesia was carried out. Patients were randomly allocated to either of two groups, one of which (n = 42) was reviewed 1-2 weeks postoperatively, and one of which was not (n = 38). Those who were not reviewed were discharged with a letter containing telephone numbers to contact in case of problems. Patients' satisfaction was gauged by means of a questionnaire completed either at the review appointment or by postal survey. Three-quarters of patients who were reviewed (34/42) and three-quarters of those who were not (9/12) preferred the method of follow-up that they experienced, whether reviewed or not. A policy of selective review may be appropriate whereby only patients whose operations were problematic or who had operative or postoperative complications are reviewed. Patients who are not reviewed should be given clear instructions to contact the department if they are concerned about their postoperative condition.
Preshaw
P M
PM
Department of Restorative Dentistry, The Dental School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Fisher
S E
SE
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008964:Molar, Third / Q000601:surgery*; D011182:Postoperative Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D014081:Tooth Extraction; D014095:Tooth, Impacted / Q000601:surgery*