The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of third molar (M3) impaction worldwide in individuals ≥17 y, from either sex, who had undergone oral radiography and presented with no orofacial syndromes or defects. We performed a literature search using PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar and retrieved English and non-English articles from any period for review. We included studies reporting M3 impaction prevalence based on radiographic examination. Risk of bias was assessed regarding individuals with craniofacial syndromes, prior extraction of permanent teeth, multiple effect size estimates, and studies conflating lack of eruption with impaction. Our search yielded 49 studies involving 83,484 individuals. Worldwide M3 impaction prevalence was found to be 24.40% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 18.97% to 30.80%). The odds of M3 impaction in the mandible were 57.58% (95% CI: 43.3% to 68.3%, P < 0.0001) higher than in the maxilla, but we did not detect any difference in the odds of impaction between men and women (18.62%, 95% CI: –4.9% to 48.0%, P = 0.12). Mesioangular impaction was most common (41.17%, 95% CI: 33.8% to 49.0%), followed by vertical (25.55%, 95% CI: 20.0% to 32.0%), distoangular (12.17%, 95% CI: 9.1% to 16.0%), and horizontal (11.06%, 95% CI: 8.3% to 14.6%). Impaction of 1 (42.71%, 95% CI: 30.0% to 56.5%) or 2 (29.64%, 95% CI: 19.5% to 42.3%) M3s was much more common than 3 (12.04%, 95% CI: 7.2% to 19.3%) or 4 (8.74%, 95% CI: 5.2% to 14.5%). There were small differences among impaction prevalence depending on geographic region (F test, P = 0.049). Selection bias was evident because individuals had to undergo radiographic examination to be included in the analysis. The subgroup analysis by sex was underpowered. Worldwide M3 impaction prevalence is lower than previously reported. The percentage of individuals with impacted M3s is much smaller than the percentage that undergoes clinical treatment for M3 problems.
AitasaloKLehtinenROksalaE. 1972. An orthopantomography study of prevalence of impacted teeth. Int J Oral Surg. 1(3):117–120.
2.
Al-AnqudiSMAl-SudairySAl-HosniAAl-ManiriA. 2014. Prevalence and pattern of third molar impaction: a retrospective study of radiographs in Oman. Sultan Qaboos U Med J. 14(3):e388–e392.
3.
AllisonRAManskiRJ. 2007. The supply of dentists and access to care in rural Kansas. J Rural Health. 23(3):198–206.
4.
Bermúdez de CastroJM. 1989. Third molar impaction in human prehistoric populations of the Canary Islands. Am J Phys Anthropol. 79(2):207–215.
5.
BisharaSE. 1999. Third molars: a dilemma! Or is it?Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 115(6):628–633.
6.
BjorkAJensenEPallingM. 1956. Mandibular growth and third molar impaction. Acta Odontolol Scand. 14(3):231–272.
7.
BowdlerHCMorantGM. 1936. A preliminary study of the eruption of the mandibular third molar tooth in man based on measurements obtained from radiographs, with special reference to the problem of predicting cases of ultimate impaction of the tooth. Biometrika. 28(3–4):378–427.
8.
ByahattiSIngafouMSH. 2012. Prevalence of eruption status of third molars in Libyan students. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 9(2):152–157.
9.
CarterKWorthingtonS. 2015. Morphologic and demographic predictors of third molar agenesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 94(7):886–894.
10.
CelikogluMMilogluOKazanciF. 2010. Frequency of impaction, impaction, angulation, and related pathologic changes of third molar teeth in orthodontic patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 68(5):990–995.
11.
ChuFCLiTKLuiVKNewsomePRChowRLCheungLK. 2003. Prevalence of impacted teeth and associated pathologies: a radiographic study of the Hong Kong Chinese population. Hong Kong Med J. 9(3):158–163.
12.
DachiSFHowellFV. 1961. A survey of 3,874 routine full-mouth radiographs: II. A study of impacted teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 14(1):1165–1169.
13.
DickersinK. 2005. Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: RothsteinHRSuttonAJBorensteinM editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester (England): Wiley. p. 11–33.
14.
DuvalSJ. 2005. The trim and fill method. In: RothsteinHRSuttonAJBorensteinM, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester (England): Wiley. p. 127–144.
15.
EliassonSHeimdahlANordenramA. 1989. Pathological changes related to long-term impaction of third molars: a radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 18(4):210–212.
16.
EvensenJPOgaardB. 2007. Are malocclusions more prevalent and severe now? A comparative study of medieval skulls from Norway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 131(6):710–716.
17.
FieldingAFDouglassAFWhitleyRD. 1981. Reasons for early removal of impacted third molars. Clin Prev Dent. 3(6):19–23.
18.
GarnSMLewisABKerewskyRS. 1963. Third molar impaction and size reduction of the remaining teeth. Nature. 200(4905):488–489.
19.
HamzaTHvan HouwelingenHCStijnenT. 2008. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol. 61(1):41–51.
20.
HaniharaT. 2008. Morphological variation of major human populations based on nonmetric dental traits. Am J Phys Anthropol. 136(2):169–182.
21.
HashemipourMATahmasbi-ArashlowMFahimi-HanzaeiF. 2013. Incidence of impacted mandibular and maxillary third molars: a radiographic study in a Southeast Iran population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 18(1):e140–e145.
22.
HattabFNRawashdehMAFahmyMS. 1995. Impaction status of third molars in Jordanian students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 79(1):24–29.
23.
HellmanM. 1938. Some aspects of wisdom teeth and their impaction. Arch Clin Oral Pathol. 2:125–141.
24.
HigginsJPThompsonSG. 2002. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 21(11):1539–1558.
25.
HolmS. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 6(2):65–70.
26.
HugosonAKugelbergCF. 1988. The prevalence of third molars in a Swedish population: an epidemiological study. Community Dent Health. 5(2):121–138.
27.
KanazawaESekikawaMOzakiT. 1987. Correlations between the dimensions of human teeth, the dental arch and the mandible. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent. 29(3):165–179.
28.
KandasamySRinchuseDJ. 2009. The wisdom behind third molar extractions. Aust Dent J. 54(4):284–292.
29.
KayaGSAslanMÖmezliMMDayiE. 2010. Some morphological features related to mandibular third molar impaction. J Clin Exp Dent. 2(1):e50–e55.
30.
KonstantopoulosS. 2011. Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-level meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2(1):61–76.
31.
KreciochJ. 2014. Examining the relationship between skull size and dental anomalies. Bull Int Assoc Paleodont. 8(2):224–232.
32.
Łangowska-AdamcżykHKamanskaB. 2001. Similar locations of impacted and supernumerary teeth in monozygotic twins: a report of 2 cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 119(1):67–70.
33.
Ma’aitaJAlwrikatA. 2000. Is the mandibular third molar a risk factor for mandibular angle fracture?Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 89(2):143–146.
34.
MagrawCBMossKLFisherELOffenbacherSWhiteRP. 2016. Prevalence of visible third molars in the United States population: how many individuals have third molars?J Oral Maxillofac Surg [epub ahead of print 18 Aug 2015] in press. 74(1):13–17.
35.
MarcianiRD. 2012. Is there pathology associated with asymptomatic third molars?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 70(9Suppl 1):S15–S19.
36.
MeadSV. 1930. Incidence of impacted teeth. Int J Orthod. 16(8):885–890.
37.
MoherDShamseerLClarkeMGhersiDLiberatiAPetticrewMShekelleMStewartLA; PRISMA-P Group. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 4:1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
38.
MøllerAPJennionsMD. 2001. Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends Ecol Evol. 16(10):580–586.
39.
MonteliusGA. 1932. Impacted teeth: a comparative study of Chinese and Caucasian dentitions. J Dent Res. 12(6):931–938.
40.
MurtomaaHTurtolaLYlipaavalniemiPRytömaaI. 1985. Status of the third molars in the 20- to 21-year-old Finnish university population. J Am Coll Health. 34(3):127–129.
41.
NandaRS. 1954. Agenesis of the third molar in man. Am J Orthod. 40(9):698–706.
42.
NormandSL. 1999. Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med. 18(3):321–359.
43.
OlasojiHOOdusanyaSA. 2000. Comparative study of third molar impaction in rural and urban areas of South-Western Nigeria. Odontostomatol Trop. 23(90):25–28.
44.
PogrelMA. 2012. What is the effect of timing of removal on the incidence and severity of complications?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 70(9Suppl 1):S37–S40.
45.
QuekSLTayCKTayKHTohSLLimKC. 2003. Pattern of third molar impaction in a Singapore Chinese population: a retrospective radiographic survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 32(5):548–552.
46.
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
47.
RakhshanV. 2015. Congenitally missing teeth (hypodontia): a review of the literature concerning the etiology, prevalence, risk factors, patterns and treatment. Dent Res J. 12(1):1–13.
48.
RentonTAl-HaboubiMPauAShepherdJGallagherJE. 2012. What has been the United Kingdom’s experience with retention of third molars?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 70(9Suppl 1):S48–S57.
49.
RothsteinHRSuttonAJBorensteinM. 2005. Publication bias in meta-analysis. In: RothsteinHRSuttonAJBorensteinM, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester (England): Wiley. p. 1–7.
50.
ShahRMBoydMAVakilTF. 1978. Studies of permanent tooth anomalies in 7,886 Canadian individuals: I. Impacted teeth. Dent J. 44(6):262–269.
51.
ShapiraJChaushuSBeckerA. 2000. Prevalence of tooth transposition, third molar impaction, and maxillary canine impaction in individuals with Down syndrome. Angle Orthod. 70(4):290–296.
52.
Stermer Beyer-OlsenEMBjertnessEEriksenHMHansenBF. 1989. Comparison of oral radiographic findings among 35-year-old Oslo citizens in 1973 and 1984. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 17(2):68–70.
53.
SterneJABeckerBJEggerM. 2005. The funnel plot. In: RothsteinHRSuttonAJBorensteinM, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester (England): Wiley. p. 75–98.
54.
SterneJAEggerM. 2005. Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In: RothsteinHRSuttonAJBorensteinM, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester (England): Wiley. p. 99–110.
StijnenTHamzaTHÖzdemirP. 2010. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med. 29(29):3046–3067.
57.
UmanLS. 2011. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 201:57–59.
58.
VarrelaJ. 1990. Occurrence of malocclusion in attritive environment: a study of a skull sample from southwest Finland. Scand J Dent Res. 98(3):242–247.
59.
VentaI. 2012. How often do asymptomatic, disease-free third molars need to be removed?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 70(9Suppl 1):S41–S47.
60.
Venu Gopal ReddyK. 2012. Distribution of third molar impactions among rural and urban dwellers in the age group of 22–30 years in South India: a comparative study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 11(3):271–275.
61.
ViechtbauerW. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Soft. 36(3):1:48.
62.
WinterGB. 1926. The principles of exodontia as applied to the impacted third molar. St. Louis (MO): American Medical Book Co.
63.
YamaokaMFurusawaKYamamotoM. 1995. Influence of adjacent teeth on impacted third molars in the upper and lower jaws. Aust Dent J. 40(4):233–235.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
