Question · asked by 1 review

Extraction of a maxillary first permanent molar vs Extraction of a mandibular first permanent molar: Spontaneous space closure

Population
Children aged 5 to 15 years undergoing first permanent molar extraction
Intervention
Extraction of a maxillary first permanent molar
Comparison
Extraction of a mandibular first permanent molar
Outcome
Spontaneous space closure

Spontaneous post-extraction space closure did not differ significantly between the maxilla and mandible (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.46 to 9.28; 3 studies; I2 = 72%); ungraded.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Extraction of a maxillary first permanent molar vs Extraction of a mandibular first permanent molar
Spontaneous post-extraction space closure · Children aged 5 to 15 years undergoing first permanent molar extraction · Hospital- and clinic-based pediatric dental settings (Sweden, Romania, UK), Maxilla versus mandible (spontaneous space closure)
Spontaneous post-extraction space closure did not differ significantly between the maxilla and mandible (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.46 to 9.28; 3 studies; I2 = 72%); ungraded.
Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. (2018) All outcomes
OR 2.06 [0.46, 9.28]3 studies · 107 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 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)19Critically Low / Critically Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.

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.