Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39949671›Full record

ArticleJournal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP

Unveiling the third dimension of tooth shape: 2D versus 3D geometric morphometry of human post-canine dentition.

Srikant Natarajan, Junaid Ahmed, Shravan Shetty, Nidhin P Jose, Sharada Chowdappa, Kavery Chengappa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Srikant NatarajanDepartment of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Junaid AhmedDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Shravan ShettyDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Nidhin P JoseDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Sharada ChowdappaPrivate Dental Researcher, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Kavery ChengappaDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Geometric morphometry is an effective tool for studying teeth morphology for quantifying variations in dental shape across individuals and populations. This study aims to analyse the dimorphism of human post-canine maxillary and mandibular tooth shape by utilising 2D and 3D landmark data and compare the effectiveness of both methods in detecting allometry and shape characteristics. Methods: Pre-treatment dental casts (N = 160) from patients aged 13-20 were digitised, and 2D and 3D anatomic landmarks on maxillary and mandibular post-canine teeth were marked. The data were evaluated using principal component analysis, discriminant function analysis, and regression analysis of shape coordinates with centroid size using MorphoJ morphometric software. Results: Principal component analysis revealed that 20-30% of the principal components explained 80% variation in tooth shape. The maxillary second molar and mandibular second premolar had the largest differences in variance between 2D and 3D data. The two-cusp type mandibular second premolar and maxillary second molar displayed the highest variation in 3D analysis. The mandibular second premolar (two-cusp type) had the highest overall accuracy in classifying sex, followed by the maxillary first and second molars. Conclusion: 3D data collection offers advantages over 2D methods, but it has limitations and trade-offs. It can be time-consuming and expensive and require specialized equipment or software. 2D methods may miss important depth axis variation or capture biological variation. Researchers must carefully consider the benefits and limitations of both methods before choosing. This study provides valuable insight into post-canine tooth shape dimorphism and contributes to existing knowledge in the field.

Indexed as

2D Landmarks3D landmarksdimorphismeducationgeometric morphometrylandmark dataprocrustes analysissex estimation

Identifiers

PMID39949671
PMCPMC11819640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.