Question · asked by 1 review
Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Contralateral non-extraction side (same patient): Development and eruption of the second permanent molar
- Population
- Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar
- Intervention
- Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar
- Comparison
- Contralateral non-extraction side (same patient)
- Outcome
- Development and eruption of the second permanent molar
Root closure and eruption of the second permanent molar appeared accelerated on the extraction side in a single case-control study; ungraded and not statistically tested.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Contralateral non-extraction side (same patient) Development and eruption of the second permanent molar · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar · Orthodontic clinic (Turkey) Root closure and eruption of the second permanent molar appeared accelerated on the extraction side in a single case-control study; ungraded and not statistically tested. Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. (2018) All outcomes | Root closure and eruption of the second permanent molar were accelerated on the extraction side versus the non-extraction side (Telli and Aytan; not statistically tested). Table 3: Category III, Class C. | 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 |
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.