SynthesisBMC oral health2024
Morphology and root canal configuration of maxillary canines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Propolis-containing formulations in caries prevention - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled it
- Micro-computed tomographic analysis of the morphology of maxillary canines.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed the internal morphology of maxillary canines (MxC) through a systematic review of existing literature.
methodsResearch articles up to June 2024 were retrieved from five electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane). Predefined search terms and keywords were used, and potential studies were identified by cross-referencing and bibliographies of the selected articles reviewed.
resultsTwo hundred studies were identified, 73 duplicates were removed, 127 records were screened, and 113 were removed after consultation of title and abstract. After full-text consultation and hand searching, finally 22 studies were included. Using the method for describing the root canal configuration (RCC) of Briseño Marroquín et al. (2015) and Vertucci (Ve) (1984), the most frequently reported RCC of MxC were 1-1-1/1 (Ve I, 75.4-100%), 2-2-1/1 (Ve II, 0.1-20%), 1-2-1/1 (Ve III, 0.1-11.6%), 2-2-2/2 (Ve IV, 0.1-0.4%), 1-1-2/2 (Ve V, 0.1-2.4%), 2-1-2/2 (Ve VI, 0.5-1.2%), and 1-2-1/2 (Ve VII, 0.1-0.2%). The meta-analysis of six studies (Europe/Asia) showed that a significantly higher number of RCC of 2-2-1/1 (Ve II) (OR [95%CI] = 1.34 [0.53, 3.41]), 1-2-1/1 (Ve III) (OR [95%CI] = 2.07 [1.01, 4.26]), and 1-1-2/2 (Ve V) (OR [95%CI] = 2.93 [1.07, 8.07]), were observed in males, and 2-2-2/2 (Ve IV) (OR [95%CI] = 0.08 [0.00, 4.00]) in females. No sex differences in the RCC of 1-1-1/1 (Ve I) and 1-2-1/2 (Ve VII) were observed.
conclusionsCone beam computed tomography is the most frequently used method for research on the RCC of MxC. Despite the high prevalence of type 1-1-1/1 (Ve I) RCC in MxC, clinicians should remain vigilant for more complex and sex-differentiated patterns in up to 25% of cases to prevent endodontic treatment complications or failures.
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.