ArticlePloS one2023
How dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons deal with tooth extraction without a valid clinical indication.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring dentists' experiences of endodontic file fracture during root canal treatment: a phenomenological study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Postoperative pain and influencing factors after prophylactic extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a multicenter prospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study pertains to a secondary data analysis aimed at determining differences between oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFSs) and dentists handling dental extractions without an evident clinical indication. STUDY
designA survey of 18 questions was conducted among 256 OMFSs in the Netherlands and a random sample of 800 dentists Respondents could answer the questions in writing or online. The data was collected in the period from November 2019 to January 2020, during which two reminders were sent. Analysis of the data took place via descriptive statistics and Chi Square test.
resultsThe response rate was 28.1% (n = 72) for OMFSs and 30.3% (n = 242) for dentists. In the past three years, 81.9% (n = 59) of the OMFSs and 68.0% (n = 164) of the dentists received a request for extraction without a clinical indication. The most common reasons were financial and severe dental fear (OMFSs: 64.9 and 50.9% vs dentists: 77.4 and 36.5%). Dentists were significantly more likely (75.6%, n = 114) than OMFS (60.7%, n = 34) to comply with their last extraction request without a clinical indication. Almost none of them regretted the extraction afterwards. As for the request itself, it was found that 17.5% (n = 10) of the OMFSs and 12.5% (n = 20) of the dentists did not check for patients' mental competency (p = 0.352).
conclusionsGiven that most of the interviewed dental professionals complied with non-dental extraction requests when such extractions are ethically and legally precarious, recommendations for handling such requests are greatly needed.
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.