Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42107975›Full record

ReviewThe Angle orthodontist2026

Management of upper third molars in Class II patients undergoing orthodontic distalization: a systematic review.

Andrea Boggio, Alessia Ruggieri, Maria Giacinta Paolone, Giorgio Gastaldi, Fabio Castellana, Antonio Manni, Mauro Cozzani

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Angle orthodontist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andrea Boggio
Alessia Ruggieri
Maria Giacinta Paolone
Giorgio Gastaldi
Fabio Castellana
Antonio Manni
Mauro Cozzani

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To update previous findings, assess the impact of third molar presence or absence on distalization outcomes, and provide evidence-based clinical guidance in the management of upper third molars in Class II patients. Materials and Methods: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines and applied Participants, Exposure, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design criteria to define eligibility. A literature search across four databases was conducted, up to April 2025, limited to indexed studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles, resolving disagreements with a third reviewer. Included studies were categorized based on whether authors recommended extraction of upper third molars (eg, surgical germectomy) before distalization. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grade of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation reporting system criteria. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria: 10 nonrandomized retrospective trials and one nonrandomized prospective trial. Authors of all studies reported a significant reduction in the upper retromolar space during distalization. Most found that absence or prior extraction of upper third molars facilitated improved bodily movement of first and second molars and reduced treatment duration. Conclusions: Current evidence, though low in quality, suggests that the presence of upper third molars may hinder the efficiency of orthodontic distalization and affect the spontaneous eruption path of these teeth. Strategic third molar management may enhance treatment outcomes and should be considered in treatment planning.

Indexed as

Class IIDistalizationReviewThird molar

Identifiers

PMID42107975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.