ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
A retrospective study on the reasons for second molar extraction.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The reasons for second molar extraction include endodontics, periodontal disease, and impacted third molars. This retrospective study analyzed medical records and image examinations of patients who underwent second molar extraction to clarify the proportional distribution of different causes. Materials and methods: Medical records and imaging data of patients who underwent second molar extraction between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were systematically collected. Two senior dentists analyzed and recorded patient demographics, clinical diagnoses, and extraction causes. Inter-rater consistency was verified using Kappa testing. Results: A total of 1,818 valid cases were included with a mean age of 52.9 years (male: 864 cases; female: 954 cases). Endodontic factors accounted for 1,045 s molar extractions (57.43%) and periodontal factors contributed to 588 extractions (32.40%), both showing significant age-related correlations ( Conclusions: The main reasons for extracting second molars were endodontic factors, followed by periodontal factors, and impacted third molars. Advanced age was significantly associated with increased extraction risks attributable to both endodontic and periodontal disease. Impacted third molar-related factors accounted for a larger proportion in cases of mandibular second molar extractions.
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.