Mandibular third molar surgery in 396 patients at a Norwegian university clinic: Morbidity recorded after 1 week utilizing an e-infrastructure for clinical research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate morbidity 1 week after mandibular third molar (3M) surgery in the authors' department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective 1-year clinical study of patients followed up for 1 week after 3M surgery was performed. Consecutive patients of 18 years or older having 3M surgery under local anaesthesia were included. Patients not able to attend a follow-up appointment after 1 week were excluded. Demographic data, indication for surgery and clinical findings were recorded. Outcome variables were days requiring analgesic, days absent from work/school and complications. All data recording was performed utilizing an e-infrastructure for clinical research (InReach, University Health Network, www.uhnsl.com). RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-six patients were examined 1 week after surgery. Mean number of days requiring analgesics was 3.8 and mean number of days absent from work/school after surgery was 0.6. Minor complications were reported by 7% of patients. Female patients reported more days requiring analgesics compared to male patients. Smokers had a higher odds ratio for being absent ≥ 3 days. Prophylactic removal of 3Ms was associated with fewer days requiring analgesics and days absent from work/school as compared to teeth with local disease. CONCLUSION: Overall morbidity after 3M surgery was low. Compared to patients subjected to therapeutic removal of 3Ms, patients undergoing prophylactic removal seem to have less pain and a faster return to normal activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".