The same is true of the few and poorly defined categories pertaining to the extraction indications in the included and examined research. For instance, there were either no descriptions of categories or a wide range of categories utilized in the three research that were analyzed. Two studies put impacted teeth, pericoronitis, and unidentified causes under the "other reasons" category, whereas one research included impacted teeth, prosthetics, and other reasons under the same heading. These studies also contradict inclusion criteria (e.g., at least 20 teeth), research style (e.g., retrospective vs. prospective, clinical study vs. dental record), or conditions (e.g., during war). Furthermore, the studies' risk of bias ranged from moderate to high overall. It is noteworthy that research based on dental records from the past had a higher risk of bias than studies using questionnaires or prospective clinical trials.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the current investigation. The fact that we did not include youngsters or third molars in our systematic analysis is one of its advantages over earlier clinical research. Since deciduous teeth have a permanent replacement, only permanent teeth were included. Therefore, there is less chance that the removal of deciduous teeth may cause long-term harm to both function and appearance. Since third molar extraction has minimal to no impact on oral function or appearance, it was used as an exclusion criterion. Therefore, we may have gained valuable insights based on these factors, but only a small number of research were able to be included because of stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria.