Our aim was to describe patient flows in mandibular third molar surgery at oral and maxillofacial specialist units. Our hypothesis was that there are variations in how care is delivered and that the variations could be explained by inter-individual variations in surgeons' practice, the quality of the radiographs appended to the referral, and the staffing of the specialist units. A flow chart was constructed to simulate all possible patient flows in the care process.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAim: To elucidate and compare patients' outcome preferences for removal and retention of mandibular third molars in Sweden and Wales.
Subjects And Method: The subjects comprised patients referred and scheduled for removal of one or both mandibular third molars in Sweden and Wales. The multi-attribute utility (MAU) methodology was applied to study patients' preferences for outcomes of removal and retention of the mandibular third molar.
Background: Many longitudinal studies of different implant systems have been published but few controlled randomized investigations have been reported. A 1-year report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implant System implants (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) and Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) has been published by the present authors. This paper is a 3-year follow-up of that randomized study.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFClin Implant Dent Relat Res
March 2003
Background: Dental implants vary in design and surfaces. In addition, different surgical techniques have been used for implant insertion. The ITI Dental Implant System (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) has always required a one-stage technique, whereas the Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) requires a two-stage technique.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCommunity Dent Oral Epidemiol
August 2001
Objectives: In recent years, several critical outcome studies concerning the prophylactic removal of mandibular third molars have been published. These would appear to motivate a more restrictive approach today as compared with 10 years ago. The aim of the present study was to examine dentists' decisions on the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars over a 10-year period.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF