Should removal of lower third molars be included in the pre-graduate curriculum for dental students? An evaluation of post-operative complications after student operations

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate guidelines for selection of lower third molars (M3) to be removed by dental students (DS) and to compare M3 surgery performed by oral surgeons (OS) and DSs with regard to operation time and post-operative complications. Materials and methods. Three hundred and thirteen patients with 313 lower M3 were assigned to be operated by either a DS or an OS, depending on the estimated difficulty of the surgery. During the post-operative week patients recorded pain (VAS) and other complications. Complications were also recorded objectively 1 week post-operatively. Results. Operations performed by DSs lasted longer than operations performed by OSs (P < 0.001). There was no difference in immediate post-operative pain intensity between the two groups. There were no differences in patients' perception of bleeding, trismus, bad taste, use of analgesics, absence from work/school and seeking professional help between the two groups. Dry socket occurred more frequently though in patients in the DS group (P = 0.008). There was no difference in the frequency of objectively assessed swelling, paraesthesia or infection. Conclusions. When appropriately selected, patients operated by DSs did not perceive more immediate post-operative pain or complications than patients operated by OSs. However, dry socket and the risk of severe pain caused by this condition occurred more frequently in patients operated by DSs. The criteria used for selection of operations for DSs seem acceptable.

Key Words::

• dental education
• oral surgery
• wisdom tooth

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Pathology and the Department of Oral Radiology for their support and goodwill during the study. Erik Gotfredsen is thanked for his invaluable help with data treatment.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.