Trial reportInternational dental journal2024
Third Molar Coronectomy vs Total Removal in Second Molar Periodontal Healing.
Trial report in International dental journal, 2024. 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.
- Expert consensus on the management of third molar health.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Prophylactic and postoperative antibiotic therapy for coronectomy procedures in mandibular third molars: mapping the evidence through a scoping review.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Coronectomy Versus Total Extraction for Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Impacted Mandibular Third Molar: Approaches and Current Perspectives in Surgical Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Re-Intervention Rate, Timing, and Indications Following Coronectomy of the Mandibular Third Molar: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the periodontal healing at the distal of the adjacent second molar after coronectomy or surgical removal and the surgical morbidities of the 2 techniques.
methodsThis is a pilot study of a split-mouth randomised clinical trial comparing the periodontal healing of the adjacent second molar after coronectomy or total removal of lower third molars, which was registered with the University of Hong Kong Clinical Trial Centre as HKUCTR-2948 on 21 February 2020. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Changes in the bone level from the cemento-enamel junction, periodontal probing depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) at the distal of the adjacent second molar were compared. Surgical morbidities in terms of pain, infection, neurologic deficit, root exposure, and need for second surgery for removal were assessed.
resultsForty patients (22 male, 18 female) with mean age of 26.7 years were evaluated at 6 months postoperatively. Both coronectomy and total removal groups demonstrated statistically significant reduction in PPD and CAL. There was an alveolar bone gain of 1.28 ± 0.88 mm in the coronectomy group and 1.13 ± 0.73mm in the control group, which was statistically significant (P < .001 for both groups).
conclusionsEarly findings show the periodontal healing at the adjacent second molar of coronectomy was as good as that of total removal of lower third molar. There were no differences in terms of surgical morbidities between both groups.
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.