ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2020
Evidence of Second Canal between Permanent Mandibular Central and Lateral Incisors in China; a Systematic Review on CBCT Studies.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endodontic Management of a Mandibular Central Incisor With Vertucci Type V Configuration: A Case Report From Nepal.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Morphology of Roots and Canals of Maxillary First Premolars: A CBCT Study in a Peruvian Sample.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Accuracy verification of dental cone-beam computed tomography of mandibular incisor root canals and assessment of its morphology and aging-related changes.Anatomy & cell biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessment of root canal morphology of mandibular permanent anterior teeth in an Iraqi subpopulation by cone-beam computed tomography.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of CBCT for Detection of Second Canal of Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2021Review
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
introductionEvidence of second canal in permanent mandibular incisors is frequently questioned in dentistry. The difference in evidence between the two teeth is an interesting argument across different countries and ethnicities. So the aim of the systematic review was to investigate the evidence of second canal between permanent mandibular central and lateral incisors in China. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe papers were selected from the electronic databases and hand searching according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. All qualified studies were judged by the reviewers. The selected studies were checked with Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for prevalence studies. Finally, three studies were selected for the review and meta-analyses. The proportion of the second canal with its confidence interval and forest plot for the meta-analyses were calculated.
resultsThe evidences of second canal in permanent mandibular central and lateral incisors in China were 5.6% and 14.1%. Only one study reported bilateral symmetry of the second canal as 58.7% and 76.1% in the two types of teeth. Out of all canal anatomies, Vertucci's type ΙΙΙ was dominant comprising 4.1% and 11.2% together with other second-canal types comprising 1.4% and 3% in permanent mandibular central and lateral incisors. When the proportions were meta-analyzed, mandibular central incisors had been less numerous OR = 0.35 [0.31, 0.40], 0.33[0.28, 0.39], and 0.42 [0.22, 0.79] in the evidence of second canal, of Type ΙΙΙ, and of other types except Type ΙΙΙ than mandibular lateral incisors in China. Out of all second-canal anatomies, Type ΙΙΙ presented 72.5% and 78.9% along with other second-canal types comprising 24.3% and 21.1% in the two teeth in China.
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.