Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40062590›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthodontics2025

Extraction of premolars in orthodontic treatment does not negatively affect upper airway volume and minimum cross-sectional area: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Spyridon N Papageorgiou, Maria Zyli, Alexandra K Papadopoulou

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Spyridon N PapageorgiouClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1968-3326
Maria ZyliDivision of Orthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Miche-Servet 1, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0007-4738-0150
Alexandra K PapadopoulouDivision of Orthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Miche-Servet 1, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5981-0479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtraction of premolars is usually prescribed for the orthodontic treatment of cases with inadequate space within the dental arch or when anterior teeth retraction is indicated; however, it has been advocated that this treatment approach could negatively influence the airways.

objectiveTo identify and critically appraise studies of premolar extractions during orthodontic treatment on upper airway dimensions. Search methods: Electronic unrestricted searches in nine databases until October 2024. Selection criteria: Clinical studies on humans comparing comprehensive orthodontic treatment with versus without the extraction of premolars using cone-beam computed tomography to assess upper airway volume or minimum cross-sectional area (minCSA). Data collection and analysis: After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment according to Cochrane, random-effects meta-analyses of Mean Differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence.

resultsTwelve papers corresponding to 11 unique retrospective non-randomized studies were included, covering 891 patients (35.8% male; 20.0 years-old on average). No statistically significant differences in the effect of orthodontic treatment on the volume of the nasopharynx, palatopharynx, glossopharynx, oropharynx or oral cavity were seen between patients treated with versus without premolar extractions (P > .05). Similarly, no significant differences were seen between extraction and non-extraction patients in terms of minCSA of the nasopharynx, palatopharynx, or glossopharynx (P > .05). On the contrary, patients treated with premolar extractions showed increased minCSA of the oropharynx compared to those treated without premolar extractions (4 studies; MD = 23.00 mm2; 95% CI = 10.74-35.26 mm2; P = .009). No significant effects from patient age, sex, or equivalence of the extraction/non-extraction groups were found, while the strength of evidence was moderate in all cases due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with high risk of bias.

conclusionsLimited evidence of moderate strength indicates that, on average, premolar extractions during comprehensive orthodontic treatment have little to no effect on the volume and minCSA of the airways. REGISTRATION: CRD42024621355.

Indexed as

BicuspidOrthodontics, CorrectivePharynxTooth ExtractionCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansNasopharynxairwaysmeta-analysisorthodontic treatmentsystematic reviewtooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID40062590
PMCPMC11891658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.