ReviewExperimental and therapeutic medicine2022
Congenitally missing second permanent molars in non-syndromic patients (Review).
Review in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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.
- Congenital Bilateral Missing of Permanent Mandibular Second Molars in a 10-Year-Old Child: A Case Report.Frontiers in dentistry · 2024Article
- Assessment of prevalence and distribution of congenital missing teeth among patients visiting tertiary care hospital: A radiographic study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypodontia (tooth agenesis) is regarded as the most common congenital dental anomaly. The present review discusses the epidemiological characteristics of congenitally missing second permanent molars (CMSPMs) within a systematic review of the literature. The review was based on Pubmed library associated with the search of various scientific databases or academic resources, improved by hand search of reference lists. The terms 'hypodontia' or 'anodontia' in combination with 'prevalence' or 'epidemiology' were searched in the data sources for studies published between January 2001 and December 2020. Abstracts of non-English papers were also analyzed. The inclusion criteria were as follows: i) Study provided precise data about CMSPMs, even if no second permanent molar was reportedly missing; ii) the number of CMSPMs distributed by jaw was provided and iii) studies on subjects >3 years were used. The exclusion criteria were as follows: i) Studies on patients with history of trauma of the maxilla or the mandible, any type of syndrome affecting bone metabolism, metabolic disorders, previous extraction or tooth loss due to dental caries, cleft lip and palate; ii) studies performed on cohorts of patients with hypodontia and iii) studies reporting data including third molars, except for those that presented sufficient data to perform correct calculations. A total of 79 studies were selected, accumulating a population of 281,968 people, with an average sample size of 3,524.60±11,255.25. The prevalence of CMSPMs (IpHSPM) was 2.79±3.16% among all missing teeth (1.03±1.59% for upper CMSPMs and 1.76±2.32% for lower CMSPMs; P=0.011). There were no significant differences (P=0.250) in IpHSPM between men (1.59±1.52%) and women (2.13±1.67%). However, significant differences were recorded between continents. Furthermore, lower CMSPMs were found more frequently in orthodontic samples (P=0.033). The prevalence of CMSPMs is low compared with the overall prevalence of CM teeth. Despite the rarity of these anomalies, early detection is important to enable practitioners to plan and start treatment at the best time for optimal results.
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.