ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of angular and positional changes of maxillary third molars following premolar extraction, molar distalization, and non-extraction treatments.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
backgroundTo compare the effects of first premolar extraction, molar distalization, and non-extraction treatments on the angulation and vertical positions of maxillary second molars (MxM2s) and maxillary third molars (MxM3s). To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the effects of three different treatment types on MxM3 simultaneously.
methodsInitial (T0) and final (T1) panoramic radiographs of three different patient groups were analyzed: first premolar extraction group (n = 26 patients, 52 MxM2, 52 MxM3), molar distalization group (n = 20 patients, 40 MxM2, 40 MxM3), and non-extraction group (n = 31 patients, 62 MxM2, 62 MxM3). Descriptive data, including growth pattern, crowding, overjet, overbite, and maxillary incisor inclination, were recorded. Angular changes of maxillary third molars (MxM3) relative to the Interorbital Plane (IOP) and Palatal Plane (PP), as well as changes in inclination and vertical position according to Archer's classification, were also documented. Differences between T0 and T1 within the same group were assessed using the paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Comparisons between groups were evaluated with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis H test. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < .05.
resultsIOP and PP values of MxM2 and MxM3 showed significant improvement in the extraction group (EG)(p < .001). The improvement in MxM3 IOP and PP values was not significant in the distalization group (DG)(p = .196 and p = .544, respectively). According to Archer's classification, within-group comparisons revealed that the inclination and vertical position of MxM3 showed significant improvement in the EG, DG, and non-extraction groups (NEG)(inclination: p < .001 in EG, p = .032 in DG, p = .024 in NEG; vertical position: p < .001 in EG, p = .048 in DG, p < .001 in NEG). In between-group comparisons, the most significant improvement was observed in the EG. The number of MxM3 with vertical positions in Stages 1 and 2 at T1 were 19 in EG, 3 in DG, and 10 in NEG.
conclusionPremolar extraction has a positive effect on the angular and positional changes of MxM2 and MxM3. The changes in the inclination and vertical position of MxM3 between NEG and DG were not statistically significant.
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.