What do systematic reviews say?

122 questions · 185 findings · 7 reviews · Oral and maxillofacial surgery

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 175 · 94.6%Very low 0 · 0%Low 10 · 5.4%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

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.

1 finding from 1 review

Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. 2018 All outcomes
School-based survey (South Glamorgan, UK) · Proximal surfaces (extraction vs FPM present; fewer decayed/filled with extraction)
OR 0.48 [0.33, 0.69]
1 study
GRADE not reported

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Non-extraction (retained first permanent molar) or contralateral non-extraction side

Spontaneous space closure · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar is followed by variable spontaneous closure of the post-extraction space (about 45.5% to 85.2% of cases); certainty was not GRADE-rated (Shekelle category III).

1 finding from 1 review

Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. 2018 All outcomes
Hospital- and clinic-based pediatric dental settings (Sweden, Romania, UK, Palestine, Turkey)
Spontaneous space closure ranged from 45.5% to 85.2% overall (maxilla 33.3% to 94%, mandible 50% to 75%). Table 3 conclusion: early extraction of compromised FPM leads to decrease in post extraction space (Category III…
6 studies
GRADE not reported