ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2022
Appropriateness of standard cephalometric norms for the assessment of dentofacial characteristics in patients with cleidocranial dysplasia.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation of RUNX2 Variants With Craniofacial-Dental Phenotypes in Cleidocranial Dysplasia.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- 3D Cephalometric Normality Range: Auto Contractive Maps (ACM) Analysis in Selected Caucasian Skeletal Class I Age Groups.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCleidocranial dysplasia (CCD) is a rare skeletal syndrome affecting craniofacial and dental development. As a consequence, conventional cephalometric landmarks may not be valid for CCD patients, and the appropriateness of norms used for the general population should be critically discussed.
methodsFive patients 9- to 22-year-old (three females, two males) with CCD were included. Lateral-cephalograms, orthopantomographies, and intra-oral photos were retrospectively analysed. Lateral-cephalograms of 50 normal controls (ten for each CCD patient) matched for age and sex were selected from an online database. Cephalometric measurements of each CCD patients were compared with average values of matched controls using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired values (α = 0.05).
resultsIn CCD patients, a shortening of the cranial base was present (
conclusionsStandard cephalometric norms for the assessment of horizontal jaw position may not be applicable to CCD patients because of a reduced anterior cranial base length compared to normal subjects. Vertical relationships may not be affected, and mandibular hypodivergency was confirmed.
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.