Response to letter to the editor, "Retained asymptomatic third molars and risk for second molar pathology".

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. How the Loss of Second Molars Corresponds with the Presence of Adjacent Third Molars in Chinese Adults: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
   Article
2. Resorptive potential of impacted mandibular third molars: 3D simulation by finite element analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2018
   Article
3. Tridimensional assessment of the dental follicle dimensions of impacted mandibular third molars using cone-beam CT.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Retained asymptomatic third molars and risk for second molar pathology.2013
• Comment on
  Letter to the editor, "Retained asymptomatic third molars and risk of second molar pathology".2014

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as