ArticleBDJ open2026
Reasons for tooth extraction in a Swedish county dental service: a 5-year longitudinal cohort study with focus on endodontic pathology.
Article in BDJ open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to investigate tooth extractions in a Swedish public general dental practice setting, including the proportion of endodontically treated teeth, reasons for extraction, and subsequent prosthetic replacement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted in 20 clinics within the Public Dental Service of Västra Götaland, Sweden. During an 8-week period, general dental practitioners consecutively registered reasons for tooth extraction. Patients' pain levels were assessed. Pre-extraction radiographs were assessed for tooth status. Five-year follow-up data from electronic dental records were used to determine whether the extracted teeth had been prosthetically replaced and to classify the type of replacement. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used.
resultsA total of 133 patients (61 men and 72 women; mean age 54.0 years, SD = ± 15.8) underwent extractions. Endodontic pathology (36.8%) and fractures (24.8%) were the most common reasons. Sixty-one patients had previous endodontic treatment, and one-third of extracted teeth were root-filled. Thirty-five teeth were prosthetically replaced, most often with removable prostheses (45.7%).
conclusionsEndodontically treated teeth, including those with initiated or completed root canal treatment, were markedly overrepresented among extractions, yet prosthetic replacement was infrequent. Younger patients less often opted for replacement, warranting further investigation of factors influencing replacement decisions.
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.