ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Unmasking the hidden risks: clinical implications of 4 premolar extraction orthodontics on health and upper airway dynamics.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
a commentary onZhang J, Chen G, Li W, Xu T, Gao X Upper airway changes after orthodontic extraction treatment in adults: a preliminary study using cone beam computed tomography. PLoS ONE 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143233 .
designRetrospective study and untreated matched controls. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, journals.plos.org, researchgate.net, Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: This retrospective study enrolled 18 adults with Class II and hyperdivergent skeletal malocclusion (5 males and 13 females, 24.1 ± 3.8 years of age, BMI 20.33 ± 1.77 kg/m2). And 18 untreated controls were matched 1:1 with the treated patients for age, sex, BMI, and skeletal pattern. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Age >18 years; sagittal Class II (ANB > 4.7°) and vertical hyperdivergent (MP/SN > 37.7°) skeletal pattern; convex profile evaluated by E line; no missing teeth except for the third molars; orthodontic camouflage treatment with extraction of four premolars and maximum anchorage using mini-screws; and available CBCT data both before and after treatment. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m2. Rapid maxillary expansion, protraction facemask therapy, extra-oral force to push molars distally, functional appliances, and orthognathic surgery. History of cleft lip or palate. Hyperplasia of tonsils or adenoids or history of tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy. Snoring or other sleep disorders.
resultsFour premolar extraction, upper incisors retracted 7.87 mm, lower incisors retracted 6.10 mm. The cross-sectional area of the upper airway was not changed, but the sagittal dimension between the soft palate and the posterior pharyngeal wall were significantly decreased. STUDY
conclusionsThe study reported that its null hypothesis was not rejected, with no significant difference in the airway size and significant compression of the sagittal posterior airway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40016414What 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.