Methods

Using the explanation and elaboration document and the Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement as a guide, a systematic review was conducted.12 The PROSPERO registration number for this review is CRD42020184804. On November 6, 2020, the following databases were searched: APA PsycINFO, Embase, and PubMed. The search keywords are displayed in Table 1, and the search technique utilized is described in Supplementary File 1. Grey literature and manual searches (such as snowballing) were employed for further searching.

Table 1: Search keywords. tooth extraction, teeth extraction, dental extraction, tooth removal, teeth removal, tooth loss, adult, adolescent, aged, age factors, age distribution, permanent dentition, permanent teeth, reason, motive, cultural diversity, religious reasons, poverty, financial reasons, social values, dental caries, complications, DMF index, tooth fractures, impacted tooth, eruption problems, surgery, oral surgical procedures, preprosthetic, corrective methods, pericoronitis, periodontal disease, periodontitis, complications, orthodontics, root canal therapy, endodontic problems, dental trauma, edentulous, esthetic reasons, medical reasons, dental foci, dental anxiety, dental fear, psychology, mental competency, somatoform disorders, post-traumatic stress disorders request, rejection, refusal to treat, ethics, etiology, trends, statistics, numerical data, survey, epidemiology, therapy.

Criteria for inclusion and removal

Patients who requested the excision of one or more permanent teeth and were at least eighteen years old were included. Since the focus was on patient requests rather than parental requests, only adults were included. This is because children under the age of 18 are considered minors, therefore a request for extraction may come from both the parent and the kid. Because permanent tooth extraction is an irreversible procedure and deciduous teeth have permanent successors, patients who had permanent tooth extractions were included. Third molars were then eliminated since, in most situations, they are not necessary for functionality or appearance.

Regarding the sample size, there were no requirements. We only choose original research that was published in English, German, French, and Dutch. Studies involving animals were not included. A research was disqualified if it included a particular sample or group, such as those who require periodontal or prosthetic care. Because this makes interpretation challenging, studies that employed a narrow range of categories (such as caries and periodontitis exclusively) were also disqualified. These studies were also disqualified when it was not evident from the complete text whether third molars or deciduous teeth were included.

The risk of bias technique for prevalence studies, which was modified from Hoy et al.13, was used to evaluate the research' quality. This tool has a good interrater agreement and is simple to use. A maximum of nine points can be earned by selecting "yes" (0 points) or "no" (1 point) for each of the nine questions. An overall score of 0–3 was utilized to indicate low risk, 4-6 to suggest moderate risk, and 7-9 to indicate high risk for the summary evaluation of risk of bias. We included research with both moderate and high risk of bias since there were not enough trials with low risk of bias.