Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34033677›Full record

ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2021

Impact of early extraction of the deciduous canine on relief of severe crowding.

Mhanna A Aljabab, Muteb Algharbi, Jan Huggare, Farhan Bazargani

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 61% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Mhanna A Aljabab
Muteb Algharbi
Jan Huggare
Farhan Bazargani
King Fahd Medical City · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore whether there were any differences in orthodontic treatment need, treatment complexity, treatment time, or the number of visits between a group of children receiving early intervention (extraction of upper and lower deciduous canines) and an age- and condition-matched control group without intervention. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatient records and study casts in the late mixed or early permanent dentitions of 46 subjects (20 from the extraction group and 26 from the control group) of an earlier prospective longitudinal study were retrieved. Orthodontic treatment need and complexity were assessed by the index of complexity, outcome, and need (ICON). Statistical calculations were performed by t-test for parametric outcome variables (treatment time, number of visits, and orthodontic treatment need) and Fisher exact test for the categorical variable (tooth extractions).

resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the groups in ICON scores of orthodontic treatment need (extraction group, mean score 59.8; control group, mean score 52.8), number of visits (mean of about 15 visits for both groups), or treatment time (extraction group, mean 21.5 months; control group, mean 20.3 months). The extraction of permanent teeth was more prevalent in the deciduous canine extraction group (59%) as compared with the control group (28%); however, this was not statistically significant (P = .07) but showed a tendency toward worsening the crowding and the future need of orthodontic extractions.

conclusionsEarly removal of deciduous primary canines will reduce neither the need for later orthodontic treatment nor its complexity, nor will it shorten the treatment time.

Indexed as

Tooth Eruption, EctopicCuspidFollow-Up StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesProspective StudiesTooth, DeciduousTooth ExtractionCrowdingExtractionMixed dentitionPrimary canine

Identifiers

PMID34033677
PMCPMC8549552
OpenAlexW3165595190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.