Trial reportEuropean journal of orthodontics2026
Oral health-related quality of life after early extraction of primary second molars in children with congenitally missing second premolars: a randomized controlled trial with matched controls.
Trial report in European journal of orthodontics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtraction of mandibular primary second molars in patients with congenitally missing second premolars may influence oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), yet this has not been previously investigated.
objectiveTo assess the impact of mandibular primary second molar extraction on OHRQoL compared with an age- and gender-matched control group without dental agenesis.
designProspective, randomized, longitudinal split-mouth study.
methodsPatients were recruited from nine public dental clinics in the Skaraborg region, Sweden (2017-2020) with bilateral congenitally missing second mandibular premolars. Each mandibular side was randomly assigned to extraction or hemisection. At the 4-year follow-up, the intervention group underwent a clinical examination and completed the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11-14) along with a treatment recall and perception questionnaire, whereas the control group underwent a clinical examination and completed the CPQ11-14.
resultsThe study included 80 patients, divided equally between the intervention group (n = 40) and the control group (n = 40). There was no significant difference in total CPQ scores between the intervention group (mean 8.5, SD 5.6) and the control group (mean 6.9, SD 5.6; P = 0.218), nor were any differences observed between sexes. The intervention group scored significantly higher in emotional (P = 0.018) and social well-being (P = 0.045). Hemisection was recalled as more painful than conventional extraction (P < 0.001). Despite 65% reported awareness of residual spaces, 82.5% were not interested in further treatment.
conclusionExtraction of mandibular primary second molars in patients with congenitally missing second premolars did not adversely affect overall OHRQoL 4 years post-treatment. Hemisection was recalled as more painful than conventional extraction. Most patients were satisfied without additional treatment, indicating good long-term acceptance of residual spaces following interceptive extraction.
trial registrationThe trial was registered with https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige, registration number: 967125.
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.