Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33648772›Full record

SynthesisInternational dental journal2022

Reasons for Tooth Removal in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Dyonne L M Broers, Leander Dubois, Jan de Lange, Naichuan Su, Ad de Jongh

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dyonne L M BroersDepartment of Social Dentistry and Behavioral Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: d.l.m.broers@acta.nl.
Leander DuboisDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, and Woerden, The Netherlands.
Jan de LangeDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Isala klinieken Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Naichuan SuDepartment of Social Dentistry and Behavioral Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ad de JonghDepartment of Social Dentistry and Behavioral Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Research Department PSYTREC, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; School of Health Sciences, Salford University, Salford, United Kingdom; Institute of Health and Society, University of Worcester, Worcester, United Kingdom; School of Psychology, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMost tooth extractions are performed for dental reasons, but there are also nondental and nonmedical reasons for extractions; these include psychological, financial, religious, and cultural reasons as well as simply granting a patient's request. This systematic review was performed to examine the proportion and range of indications associated with tooth removal in context of dental, nondental, and medical reasons.

methodsA search conducted using PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycINFO identified 6038 studies. Three studies (4396 extractions in total) could be included for the risk of bias assessment and qualitative data synthesis.

resultsThe reported indications for tooth extraction on dental and medical grounds included caries with the proportion of all extractions ranging from 36.0% to 55.3%, periodontitis from 24.8% to 38.1%, trauma from 0.8% to 4.4%, periapical disease from 7.3% to 19.1%, orthodontics from 2.5% to 7.2%, and other reasons from 4.5% to 9.2%. The proportion for patient requests ranged from 3.6% to 5.9%, but specific information regarding the actual reasons for extraction could not be determined.

conclusionThe results suggest that caries and periodontitis are the most common indications for tooth extraction and that studies to reliably estimate the incidence of nondental and nonmedical motivation for extraction are lacking. Given that the final decision on performing or refusing extractions, whether it be based on dental, nondental, or nonmedical reasons, largely rests with the dentist and oral surgeon, detailed guidelines are warranted.

Indexed as

Dental CariesOrthodonticsPeriodontitisAdultDental CareHumansTooth ExtractionClinical decision-makingMotivationPatient preferenceTooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID33648772
PMCPMC9275356
OpenAlexW3134367172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.