ArticleOdontology2024
Characterization of the root and canal anatomy of maxillary premolar teeth in an Iraqi subpopulation: a cone beam computed tomography study.
Article in Odontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of root morphology and canal configuration of permanent premolars using cone-beam computed tomography.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of root canal morphology of premolar teeth using cone beam computed tomography: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Maxillary First Premolars' Internal Morphology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Evaluating key predictors of anatomical complexity in mandibular incisors: insights from CBCT analysis considering premolar anatomy, sex, and age.Odontology · 2025Article
- Root and canal configurations of maxillary first premolars in 22 countries using two classification systems: a multinational cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of root and canal anatomy of maxillary first premolars in Iraqi sub-population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analysis of root number and canal morphology of maxillary premolars using cone-beam computed tomography.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Internal Anatomy of Maxillary Premolars in an Adult Saudi Subpopulation Using 2 Classifications: A CBCT-Based Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Morphology of Roots and Canals of Maxillary First Premolars: A CBCT Study in a Peruvian Sample.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the number of roots and root canal morphology types of maxillary premolars in relation to a patient's gender and age in an Iraqi population using two classification systems. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of 1116 maxillary premolars from 385 patients were evaluated for the number of roots and root canal morphology types according to Vertucci's classification and Ahmed et al. classification systems. Differences in the number of roots and root canal morphology types with regard to tooth type, patients' gender and age groups were evaluated and the degree of bilateral symmetry was determined. Chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis. About 51.1% of the 1st premolars were double rooted. The majority (87.9%) of the 2nd premolars were single rooted. The three-rooted form presented in only 1.2% and 0.7% of the 1st and 2nd premolars, respectively. Vertucci Type IV (Ahmed et al. code
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.