ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
How the Loss of Second Molars Corresponds with the Presence of Adjacent Third Molars in Chinese Adults: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of OPG and CBCT in the Evaluation of Impacted Mandibular third Molar Proximity to the Mandibular Canal.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
- Comparison of immediate vs. delayed guided tissue regeneration in Infrabony defect of second molars after adjacent third molar extraction: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Third molar-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and medical history of 904 Chinese adults: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2023Article
- Non-Impacted Third Molars: Angels or Devils?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Application of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Risk Assessment of Lower Third Molar Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Third molars (M3s) can increase the pathological risks of neighboring second molars (M2s). However, whether the M3 presence affects M2 loss remains unknown. This retrospective study aimed to reveal the reasons for M2 loss and how M2 loss relates to neighboring M3s. The medical records and radiographic images of patients with removed M2(s) were reviewed to analyze why the teeth were extracted and if those reasons were related to adjacent M3s. Ultimately, 800 patients with 908 removed M2s were included. In the included quadrants, 526 quadrants with M3s were termed the M3 (+) group, and the other 382 quadrants without M3s were termed the M3 (−) group. The average age of patients in the M3 (+) group was 52.4 ± 14.8 years and that of the M3 (−) group was 56.7 ± 14.9 years, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Of the 908 M2s, 433 (47.7%) were removed due to caries and sequelae and 300 (33.0%) were removed due to periodontal diseases. Meanwhile, 14.4% of the M2s with adjacent M3s were removed due to distal caries and periodontitis, which were closely related to the neighboring M3s; this percentage was much lower when M3 were absent (1.8%). Additionally, 42.2% of M3s were removed simultaneously with neighboring M2s. The presence of M3s, regardless of impaction status, was associated with an earlier loss of their neighboring M2s.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.