ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2022
Root Morphology and Canal Configuration of Permanent Canines Among Saudi Population: Systematic Review and Comparison with Worldwide Studies.
Review in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative cone beam computed tomography analysis of root canal morphology in permanent maxillary and mandibular canines within a Saudi Arabian subpopulation in the Albaha region.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
- Micro-computed and cone beam-computed tomographies for identification of Canals' morphological patterns of mandibular canines in Egyptian and Saudi Subpopulations: A comparative study.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of Root Canal Characteristics in Permanent Canine Teeth Among 270 Saudi Subjects: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The root morphology and canal configuration (RMCC) of mandibular and maxillary canines among Saudi population is systematically reviewed and compared with international studies in this research. Methods: This study was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. The electronic databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Wiley Library, Google website search, and Web of Science were searched. Only local and international cross-sectional, comparative, evaluation, and validation studies or case reports published between 2016 and 2022 that directly evaluated canine RMCC and assessed participants using cone beam computed tomography were included. Results: Forty-three studies that investigated RMCCs (17 local and 26 international) were involved in this review. The original Saudi research recorded that almost 100% of maxillary canines had one root and one canal, whereas 98.4% and 94.1% had one root and one canal in the mandibular arch. Vertucci's class I had the highest percentages in the maxillary and mandibular arches at 98.3% and 95.8%, respectively, followed by class III with 0.7% and 1.9% for the same arches, respectively. International studies recorded that 100% of maxillary canines had one canal and root; the percentages of the mandibular arch were 92.3 and 98% for single canal and root, respectively; and the highest percentage was obtained by Vertucci's class I (91.1%), followed by class III (4.7%). Conclusion: This review reports and confirmed the symmetry of the RMCCs of maxillary and mandibular canines between Saudi studies and other populations. Moreover, Vertucci's classes I and III were the most frequent RMCCs, and two-rooted canines in both arches were considerably less frequently than single-rooted ones.
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.