SynthesisProgress in orthodontics2025
The impact of extraction vs. non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the angulation of third molars on panoramic radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Progress in orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Camouflage Modalities of Treatment for Skeletal Class III Malocclusion in Adults-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe angulation of third molars is a critical factor influencing the likelihood of impaction. Orthodontic premolar extractions have been hypothesized to affect the eruption path of developing third molars by modifying available space and mesial drift patterns.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether premolar extraction during orthodontic treatment alters the angulation of developing third molars compared to non-extraction protocols. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies comparing angular measurements of third molars between extraction and non-extraction orthodontic treatments were included. Studies without a control group or adequate cephalometric data were excluded. INFORMATION SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across two electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus) up to November 2024, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. RISK OF BIAS AND SYNTHESIS OF
resultsRisk of bias was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the ROBINS-I tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsNine studies (865 participants) were included. For mandibular third molars, extraction was significantly associated with improved angulation (SMD = - 0.37; 95% CI: - 0.59 to - 0.15; p = 0.004). Significant differences were found in M3L/M2L (MD = - 1.31; 95% CI: - 1.76 to - 0.85; p = 0.003) and M3L/PP (MD = - 4.85; 95% CI: - 8.50 to - 1.21; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was observed in the M3L/MP angle. In the maxilla, only the M3U-PP angle showed a significant change (MD = - 5.79; 95% CI: - 11.53 to - 0.04; p = 0.049). Meta-regression revealed no association with age, sex, or premolar type. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate.
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.