ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Statistical Study Concerning Extraction and Non-Extraction Methods in Orthodontic Treatments.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction in orthodontic treatment of children and adolescents: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Therapeutic extractions in orthodontics: An exploratory survey based study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
introductionThe need to extract permanent teeth for the correction of dento-maxillary anomalies remains even today a controversy in orthodontic therapy. The purpose of this study was to assess the orthodontist's point of view on the extraction and non-extraction methods used in orthodontic treatments, regarding clinical experience. MATERIAL AND
methodsA de novo conceived questionnaire was elaborated by means of Google Forms and it comprised 22 questions regarding gender, age, different proprieties and aspects of both extraction and non-extraction methods and the percentage of treated patients who developed an increase in dental sensitivity and caries activity following the therapeutic stripping procedure.
results204 orthodontists answered the questionnaire. The respondents chose dental stripping (IPR-interproximal reduction) as the most used non-extraction method in their orthodontic practice with 34,3%, followed by over-expansion and dental stripping 24%. The probability that females will try to avoid dental extractions is 1.888 times higher compared to males. The association is statistically significant (p-value 0.0336). 70,1% of clinicians state that they use dental stripping as a non-extraction method to gain space even when there is NO Bolton discrepancy. In Class III cases, for reducing crowding and correcting the dental relations, 65.2% of doctors opt for dental stripping, while 34.8% do not avoid the extraction of a lower incisor.
conclusionsAmong the non-extraction methods for creating space, the most used by the surveyed orthodontists was dental stripping IPR. Tooth extraction remains a solution used by orthodontists for treating dentomaxillary disharmonies with crowding.
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.