Open Access
Table I
Characteristics of the included studies comparing adjacent second molar periodontal health.
| Author | Objective | Study design | Number of subjects | Mean age ± Standard deviation (Min–Max) |
Study duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmad M, 2021 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized controlled trial | 60 | 23.22 ± 3.17 | 6 months |
| Alqahtani NA, 2017 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, split-mouth cross-over comparative study | 60 | (18–41) | 3 months |
| Aniko-Włodarczyk M, 2021 | To evaluate the effect of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 60 | 24. 82 ± 5.51 | 2 months |
| Baldini N, 2015 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, single-blinded, comparative and prospective study | 52 | 37.8 (18– 46) |
6 months |
| Baqain ZH, 2012 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, split-mouth cross-over, comparative, prospective study | 19 | 21.4 ± 2.3 | 4 months |
| Briguglio F, 2011 | To compare the influence of three flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, double-blinded, comparative and prospective study | 45 | (18–41) | 24 months |
| Desai A, 2014 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, interventional, comparative and prospective study | 30 | 25 (20– 30) |
15 days |
| Dicus-Brookes C, 2013 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 69 | 21.8 (20–25) |
3 months |
| Fakour SR, 2017 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, single-blinded, split-mouth cross-over comparative study | 25 | 42.8 ± 3.2 | 2 months |
| Faria AI, 2012 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 25 | 21.03 ± 4.38 | 12 months |
| Kim H-R, 2011 | To compare the influence of flap and flapless extractions of M3 on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, split-mouth cross-over, comparative, prospective study | 30 | 27 (19–49) |
3 months |
| Korkmaz YT, 2015 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, single-blinded, split-mouth cross-over comparative and prospective study | 28 | 22.43 ±3.02 (18–28) |
3 months |
| Laurito D, 2016 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study, double blind | 24 | 22.42 ±3.45 | 2 months |
| Melo Stella PE, 2017 | To evaluate the effect of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 23 | 20.3 | 6 months |
| Montero J, 2011 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 48 | 23.01 | 12 months |
| Mudjono H, 2020 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on the periodontal status of M2 | Prospective, split-mouth study | 15 | (19–26) | 1 month |
| Ottria L, 2017 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 comparing three flap designs | Interventional, prospective study | 150 | (14–21) | 3 months |
| Passarelli PC, 2019 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 89 | 35 ± 18.7 (18–81) |
6 months |
| Petsos H, 2016 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 78 | 16 ± 2 | 6 months |
| Pham T, 2019 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 38 | 21.89 ± 2.74 | 6 months |
| Silva JL, 2011 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 comparing two flap designs | Split-mouth cross-over, comparative, prospective study | 24 | 23 (14–33) |
3 months |
| Sridharan G, 2020 | To compare the influence of two flap designs on post-operative outcomes and the periodontal status of M2 | Randomized, single-blinded, split-mouth cross-over comparative study | 25 | 26.5 (18–35) |
1 month |
| Tabrizi R, 2013 | To assess the impact of M3 removal on the periodontal status of M2 | Interventional, prospective study | 50 | 20.9 (18–25) |
6 months |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.