ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Assessment of Relapse Following Fixed Orthodontic Treatment in Patients Treated With and Without Extraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of extraction vs. non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the angulation of third molars on panoramic radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of predictive factors for post-orthodontic stability: a retrospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the post-treatment relapse of overjet, overbite, and mandibular incisor crowding in patients treated with extraction and non-extraction orthodontic approaches and to assess the influence of treatment modality on long-term stability. The review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted from 10 studies, including retrospective and longitudinal designs, with a total of 720 participants. The primary outcome measures included overjet, overbite, and Little's Irregularity Index. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was used as the summary statistic to compare extraction and non-extraction groups. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in relapse between extraction and non-extraction groups for overjet (SMD: 0.52, 95% CI: -0.18 to 1.23, p>0.05), overbite (SMD: 0.41, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.93, p>0.05), and incisor irregularity index (SMD: 0.71, 95% CI: -0 to 1.23, p>0.05). Funnel plots indicated no significant publication bias. Risk of bias assessment showed moderate concerns in confounding and participant selection across several studies, while bias due to missing data was notable in longer follow-up studies. The findings suggest that both extraction and non-extraction treatment approaches exhibit similar post-treatment relapse rates for overjet, overbite, and incisor irregularity. The choice of treatment should be based on clinical considerations along with concerns of long-term stability. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.
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.