{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013937282229965157, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010452961672473868, 'mean_word_length': 5.110638297872341, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Agreement between practitioners concerning removal of asymptomatic third molars.

OBJECTIVE
To investigate and compare agreement within two groups of dental practitioners, family dentists and oral surgeons, in their decisions regarding removal of asymptomatic mandibular third molars.


SUBJECTS
Ten oral surgeons and 18 family dentists from South Wales with experience ranging from 5 to 28 years.


METHODOLOGY
Participants were presented with periapical radiographs of 36 asymptomatic, mandibular third molars and were informed of the age and gender of the patients and the degree of eruption of the third molars. Participants were asked to indicate whether they thought that the third molar should be removed or not. The degree of agreement between participants was measured by kappa indices for multiple raters.


RESULTS
The kappa indices were 0.14 for the oral surgeons and 0.09 for the family dentists, indicating poor agreement beyond chance. Although in most cases the participants decided not to remove the third molar, they did so inconsistently, that is, they did not make this decision on the same cases. There were also differences in the inclination of the participants to suggest removal of the 36 third molars.


CONCLUSION
Poor inter-observer agreement suggested that treatment decisions regarding asymptomatic third molars are based more on subjective beliefs and habitual practices than on rational decision making.