ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
External root resorption of second molars due to impacted third molars.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. 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.
- Influence of impacted mandibular third molars on pathological changes on themselves and adjacent tissues across different age groups: a cross-sectional study.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Observational
- External root resorption of second molars caused by impacted third molars: CBCT characteristics.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current study attempts to assess the impact of third molar impaction on external root resorption (ERR) of the adjacent second molars. We aimed to determine the prevalence, severity, and associated factors with ERR in a sample of panoramic radiographs. Material and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out at teaching hospital. We reviewed panoramic radiographs from September 2021 to September 2024, selecting images with second and third molars in patients over 16 years old and impacted third molars. ERR was analyzed with respect to patient age and sex. The presence of symptoms, site and severity of root resorption, relationship to angulation, and depth of impaction were also recorded. Results: A total of 750 panoramic radiographs were examined, and ERR was observed in 32 cases (4.30%). ERR was slightly more common in males (62.5%) than in females (37.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant. The maximum number of ERR cases was found in the age group of 16-25 years (68.7%). Most classification of ERR was mild (71.8%). Mesioangular impacted third molars were associated with 65.6% of resorption cases and position C third molars were associated with 90.6% of resorption cases. The middle third of the root was the most common site of ERR (59.3%). Conclusions: ERR of second molars was relatively more common among patients with impacted third molars. Associations were significant for angulation (mesioangular), depth of impaction, and ERR. Hence, a question arises in assessing the amount of risk associated with its impaction in panoramic radiographic imaging.
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.