The Assessment of the Difficulty Index of Impacted Third Molar Based on Pederson’s Difficulty Index
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37762/jgmds.12-3.690Keywords:
Molars, Pederson’s Index of Complexity, TrismusAbstract
OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to determine the frequency of difficulty indices associated with impacted mandibular third molars using the Pederson difficulty index for impacted third molars.
METHODOLOGY
A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 119 patients who presented at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, from January to December 2024, with impacted third molars. A clinical examination of the oral cavity, along with confirmation via intraoral peri-apical x-rays and orthopantomograms, was used to assess the molar difficulty index. The difficulty index was further analysed across different age groups and genders to identify potential effect modifiers using the Chi-square test. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The mean age presentation was 33.5±9.12years. Pell and Gregory’s classification was utilised to assess angulation, depth, and relation with the ramus. Winters classify impactions according to angulations. The most common impactions were mesioangular (38 cases, 32%), level A (61 cases, 51%), and class 1 (59 cases, 50%), followed by horizontal (17 cases, 14%), level B (46 cases, 39%), level 2 (42 cases, 35%). The least common impaction type was vertical (12 cases, 10%), level C (12 cases, 10%), and level 3 (18 cases, 15%). The Pederson difficulty index was applied to the 119 patients analysed, revealing that 12 patients (10%) were classified as "very difficult", 26 patients (22%) as "moderately difficult", and 81 patients (68%) as "slightly difficult".
CONCLUSION
The frequency of difficulty index in removing impacted mandibular third molars was 10% for very difficult, 22% for moderately difficult, and 68% for slightly difficult.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Clinical AH, Dentistry Cosmetic and Investigational. Pattern of third molar impaction in a Saudi population. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2010;2:109-13. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDEN.S12345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S12394
Msagati F, Simon ENM, Owibingire S. Pattern of occurrence and treatment of impacted teeth at the Muhimbili National Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-13-37. PMID: 23914842 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-13-37
Juodzbalys G, Daugela P. Mandibular third molar impaction: review of literature and a proposal of a classification. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2013;4(2):e1. https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2013.4201. PMID: 24422029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2013.4201
Elsey MJ, Rock WP. Influence of orthodontic treatment on development of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;38(4):350–3. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2000.0347. PMID: 10922167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2000.0307
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(3):359–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0435-x. PMID: 24431870 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0435-x
Majid OW, Mahmood WK. Use of dexamethasone to minimise post-operative sequelae after third molar surgery: Comparison of five different routes of administration. Oral Surg. 2013;6(4):200–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ors.12032. PMID: 24472004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ors.12049
Latt M, Chewpreecha P. Prediction of difficulty in impacted lower third molars extraction; review literature. J Dent Assoc Thai. 2015;65(3):123–9
Bouloux GF, Steed MB, Perciaccante VJ. Complications of third molar surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007;19(1):117–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2006.11.013. PMID: 18088870 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2006.11.013
Vijayakumar Jain S, Muthusekhar MR, Baig MF, Senthilnathan P, Loganathan S, Abdul Wahab PU, et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional changes in pharyngeal airway following isolated Le Fort I osteotomy for the correction of vertical maxillary excess: A prospective study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019;18(1):139-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-018-1125-5. PMID: 31040826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-018-1113-4
Kamisetty SK, Verma JK, Arun Sundari S, Chandrasekhar S, Kumar A. SBS vs. inhouse recycling methods – An in vitro evaluation. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(3):C04–8. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/11737.5666. PMID: 25954689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/13865.6432
Park K. Which factors are associated with difficult surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars? J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Oct;42(5):251–8. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.5.251. PMID: 28053904 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.5.251
Susarla SM, Dodson TB. Risk factors for third molar extraction difficulty. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(11):1363–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.03.015. PMID: 15522639 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.05.214
Mahdey HM, Arora S, Arora R. Prevalence and difficulty index associated with the 3rd mandibular molar impaction among Malaysian ethnicities: a clinico-radiographic study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4):ZC65–8. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/12494.5835. PMID: 26023644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/14490.6509
Jeyashree T, Kumar MPS. Evaluation of difficulty index of impacted mandibular third molar extractions. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022;13(Suppl 1):S98–S101. https://doi.org/10.4103/japtr.japtr_37_22. PMID: 36465478 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/japtr.japtr_362_22
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(2):167–79. doi:10.1007/s12663-020-01452-6. PMID: 33623364 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-020-01452-6
de Carvalho RWF, Vasconcelos BC. Pernambuco index: predictability of the complexity of surgery for impacted lower third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(2):234–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.10.010. PMID: 27840014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.013
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(7):1358.e1–1358.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.02.003. PMID: 30851375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.03.005
Ansari MAMF, Mutha A. Digital Assessment of Difficulty in Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extraction. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020;19(3):401–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-019-01290-1. PMID: 32836693 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-019-01265-2
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Karamatullah, Hammad Wazir, Muhiyuddin Malik , Tahir Saeed , Maidah , Usman Ul Haq , Manzoor Khan, Muhammad Ilyas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
