ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Prevalence and predictive parameters of external root resorption caused by retained wisdom teeth.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between impacted third molars and external root resorption on adjacent second molars based on cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of robotic-assisted implant placement in second molars combined with step drills and manual-automatic switching function: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Retrograde Vital Pulp Treatment in External Root Resorption Due to Third Molar Impaction: A Proof-of-Concept and Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and severity of external root resorption (RR) caused by retained third molars (M3), to compare the sensitivity of panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to determine predictive factors for root resorption. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a retrospective cross-sectional analysis, we included patients (N = 367) who underwent PAN and CBCT imaging between December 2017 and July 2019. Previous orthodontic treatment, age, gender, superimposition of second molars (M2) and M3 on PAN, retention depth, inclination angle and vertical level of contact with the M2 were used as predictor variables. The outcome variable was RR of the M2, graded according to Ericson et al. [1]. Subgroup analyses compared patients with and without suspected resorption in the PAN.
resultsWhile less than 5% of PANs suggested RR associated with M3, CBCT showed RR in 20% of all M2 with adjacent retained M3. The angle of inclination of M3, patient age and vertical level of molar contact emerged as predictive parameters, with mesial inclination, older age and deeper retention associated with increased severity of M2.
conclusionWithin the limitations of our study, these data confirm the poor performance of PAN in the diagnosis of RR. CBCT may be helpful in detecting RR in mesioangulated and deeply retained M3 in elderly patients, even when PAN did not suggest pathology. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our study may help to decide whether CBCT should be considered prior to M3 surgery.
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.