ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2020
Evaluation of Sella Turcica Bridging and Morphology in Different Types of Cleft Patients.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between craniofacial skeletal patterns and the morphology and dimensions of the sella turcica: a cone-beam computed tomography study.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence applications in the diagnosis and management of cleft lip and palate: An updated review.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Review
- Factors associated with osteophytosis on the sella turcica: related morphological and morphometrical aspects.Anatomy & cell biology · 2025Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Quantitative Evaluation of Skeletal, Dental, and Soft Tissue Changes After Orthognathic Surgery: A Cephalometric and Statistical Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Associations of Digital Measurements: Analysis of Orthopantomography Versus Lateral Cephalograms for Evaluation of Facial Asymmetry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the association between PITX2, third molars agenesis and sella turcica morphology : PITX2, third molars agenesis and sella turcica morphology.Head & face medicine · 2024Article
- Relationship of the Morphology and Size of Sella Turcica with Dental Anomalies and Skeletal Malocclusions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Morphological Variations and Anomalies of the Sella Turcica on Lateral Cephalograms of Cleft-Palate-Only (CPO) Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sella turcica variations in patients with transverse skeletal discrepancies versus patients with normal transverse relationships. a cross- sectional study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Cephalometric Analysis in Orthodontics Using Artificial Intelligence-A Comprehensive Review.BioMed research international · 2022Review
- Influence of the Depth of the Convolutional Neural Networks on an Artificial Intelligence Model for Diagnosis of Orthognathic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Current Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cleft Care: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- The Assessment of 3D Digital Models Using GOSLON Yardstick Index: Exploring Confounding Factors Responsible for Unfavourable Treatment Outcome in Multi-Population Children With UCLP.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Sagittal Jaw Relationship of Different Types of Cleft and Non-cleft Individuals.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Article
- Dental Characteristics of Different Types of Cleft and Non-cleft Individuals.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate sella turcica (ST) bridging, associated anomalies, and morphology, in subjects with four different types of clefts, and compare them with non-cleft (NC) subjects. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 123 (31 NC and 92 cleft) Saudi subjects who had their lateral cephalogram (Late. Ceph.), orthopantomogram (OPG), and clinical details for ordinary diagnosis were included in the study. Among 92 cleft subjects, 29 had bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), 41 had unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), nine had unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and 13 with unilateral cleft lip (UCL). ST bridging and seven parameters related to ST morphology and skeletal malocclusion were analyzed using Late. Ceph. Associated dental anomalies in ST bridging subjects were investigated using OPG. The images were investigated using artificial intelligence driven Webceph software. Multiple statistical tests were applied to see the differences between gender and among cleft vs NC subjects.
resultsST bridging was found to be higher in cleft subjects (22.82%). Most of the cleft subjects had severe skeletal Class III malocclusion associated with multiple types of dental anomalies (impacted canines, congenital missing, and presence of supernumerary teeth). No significant gender disparities in all seven parameters of ST morphology were found between NC and cleft groups. However, there were significant differences when compared among four different types of cleft individuals vs NC subjects.
conclusionST bridging is more prevalent in cleft subjects along with Class III malocclusion and associated dental anomalies. ST morphometry differs significantly between cleft vs NC subjects. BCLP exhibits smaller values of all seven parameters as compared to all other groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.