Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35719831›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Comparison of the Gonial Angle With Age and Gender Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images.

Ayşe Bakan, Piraye Kervancıoğlu, İlhan Bahşi, Eda Didem Yalçın

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ayşe BakanAnatomy, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, TUR.
Piraye KervancıoğluAnatomy, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, TUR.
İlhan BahşiAnatomy, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, TUR.
Eda Didem YalçınDentomaxillofacial Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, TUR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The mandible is one of the most important bones used in gender determination in forensic medicine and anthropology. In literature, there are many studies examining the relationship between the gonial angle on the mandible and gender. However, these studies reported different results. This study aimed to measure the gonial angle with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and investigate the relation of this angle with age and gender. Materials and methods CBCT images of 235 dentate individuals (111 males and 124 females) aged between seven and 77 years were evaluated. The individuals examined were categorized into four age groups: 7-19 years (group I), 20-39 years (group II), 40-59 years (group III), and 60-77 years (group IV). The gonial angle was measured bilaterally in all individuals. Results The mean age of the males was 41.70 ± 19.14, and the mean age of the females was 39.47 ± 17.90 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the ages based on gender (p = 0.356). It was observed that there was a statistical difference between the gonial angle and gender in groups II and III. There was no correlation between age and gonial angle in all groups. Conclusion The results obtained in this study and the comparison of these results with the literature clearly show that it is currently not possible to clearly express the relationship between the gonial angle and both age and gender. For this reason, we believe that conducting further studies evaluating both the gonial angle and the relationship between the gonial angle and other anatomical structures on a larger sample can yield more meaningful results.

Indexed as

cone-beam computed tomographydental anthropologyforensic anthropologygonial anglemandible

Identifiers

PMID35719831
PMCPMC9191628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.