Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Teeth in the same arch/patient with the first permanent molar present: Caries and/or fillings in adjacent teeth
- Population
- Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar
- Intervention
- Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar
- Comparison
- Teeth in the same arch/patient with the first permanent molar present
- Outcome
- Caries and/or fillings in adjacent teeth
One study found fewer decayed or filled proximal surfaces but more decayed or filled occlusal surfaces in arches with an extracted first permanent molar; ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Teeth in the same arch/patient with the first permanent molar present Caries and/or fillings in adjacent teeth · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar · School-based survey (South Glamorgan, UK), Proximal surfaces (extraction vs FPM present; fewer decayed/filled with extraction) One study found fewer decayed or filled proximal surfaces but more decayed or filled occlusal surfaces in arches with an extracted first permanent molar; ungraded. Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. (2018) All outcomes | OR 0.48 [0.33, 0.69] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. 2018 All outcomes | May 2015 to 2017 (literature from 1960 to 2017) | 19 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- The relationship between loss of first permanent molar teeth and the prevalence of caries and restorations in adjacent teeth: a study of… · 1988 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.