ArticleAmerican journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics2024
Second molar eruption disturbances in borderline extraction orthodontic patients.
Article in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence of lower second molar impaction on panoramic radiographs of Peruvian individuals. A cross-sectional study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNonextraction treatment is associated with a greater prevalence of third molar impactions, whereas data on second molars are lacking. This study investigated whether there is a difference in the prevalence of second molar eruption disturbances when crowding is treated with or without extractions.
methodsPatients were grouped by maxillary and mandibular crowding, including mild crowding (<5 mm) without extractions, borderline crowding (5-9 mm) without extractions, and borderline crowding with extractions. The 535 evaluated arches were from 346 patients aged 10-15 years with unerupted second molars at treatment start. The frequency and severity of second molar eruption disturbances were scored in final records using a severity classification based on a modified Archer system, a hybrid Archer Pell-Gregory system, and a partial impaction scale. Pretreatment panoramic radiographs were scored for impaction-risk indicators. Fisher exact test was used.
resultsIn the maxilla, 20.0% of nonextraction patients with borderline crowding had second molar eruption disturbances compared to 5.2% of extraction patients with borderline crowding (P = 0.010). In the mandible, 27.6% of nonextraction borderline crowding patients had second molar eruption disturbances compared to 7.1% of extraction patients with borderline crowding (P = 0.006). There was no difference in the frequency of eruption disturbances between mild crowding without extractions and borderline crowding without extractions. The prevalence of impactions was higher in the maxilla when molars were apically positioned and in the mandible when molars were mesially angulated or had insufficient space pretreatment.
conclusionsIn patients with borderline crowding, extraction treatment reduces the risk of second molar eruption disturbances; however, nonextraction treatment does not increase the risk when compared with patients with mild crowding. When considering extractions for crowding, providers should evaluate second molar impaction-risk indicators on pretreatment radiographs.
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.