ReviewCureus2025
Choosing the Right Extraction Pattern: First Premolars vs. Second Premolars.
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.
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.
- Combined use of microimplants and a self-made four-curvature torquing auxiliary arch to manage labial root fenestration of the maxillary incisors: A case report.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Premolar extraction is a widely used orthodontic intervention to manage crowding, correct malocclusion, and achieve balanced facial aesthetics. Several factors, including the severity of crowding, facial profile requirements, and anchorage demands, influence the choice between extracting first or second premolars. However, this decision is complicated by the distinct impacts each extraction pattern has on tooth movement, soft tissue profile, vertical dimension, and third molar eruption. The debate continues over which extraction pattern provides more favorable outcomes, highlighting the need for a thorough understanding of their respective advantages and limitations. This review aims to comprehensively analyze the effects of first versus second premolar extractions on anchorage loss, tooth movement, vertical dimensions, lip position, and third molar eruption in order to provide evidence-based insights for optimizing orthodontic treatment outcomes and guiding future research. The findings demonstrate that both extraction patterns have distinct clinical implications and should be selected based on individual patient characteristics, including crowding severity, facial esthetics, anchorage needs, and third molar considerations. Clear aligner therapy requires particular attention to anchorage control, especially following second premolar extraction. Further longitudinal studies are recommended to strengthen clinical guidelines and improve treatment predictability.
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.