ArticlePloS one2025
Prevalence of congenital missing permanent teeth and its association with side and gender in a Saudi subpopulation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tooth agenesis affects one in four individuals in a multicenter saudi sample: a cross-sectional study of hypodontia and regional variation.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study's objectives are to ascertain the frequency of congenital tooth missing and evaluate the relationship between gender and side characteristics.
methodThis retrospective study involved participants who attended private dental clinics as well as a dental college in Hail, Saudi Arabia. Out of the 1,150 patients examined, 494 (220 males and 274 females) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Different types of tooth agenesis were evaluated and classified into the following categories: mild (one or two teeth missing), moderate (three to five teeth missing), and severe (six or more teeth missing). The analysis did not include third molars. The existence of retained primary teeth was noted, along with any dental abnormalities accompanying tooth agenesis. Statistical analysis was conducted utilizing the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test to explore possible relationships between variables. A significance level of 5% (alpha = 0.05) was utilized.
resultsOut of the 1150 panoramic radiographs that were examined, 494 individuals (220 (44.5%) males and 274 (55.5%) females) met the criteria for inclusion. The prevalence of congenitally missing permanent teeth was 65 (13.2%) in the study sample. The prevalence of congenitally missing teeth were more incidence in maxilla 36 (56.3%) than mandible 28 (43.8%). There is statistically significant association between the occurrence of congenitally missing teeth and gender or arch (p < 0.05). The prevalence of dental anomalies was similar in both sides. There are not a statistically significant association (p > 0.05) between the occurrence of congenitally missing teeth and side. The second premolar was the most commonly missing (7.3%). The retained deciduous teeth was shown to be the most common dental anomaly, with a prevalence of 15 (23.4%).
conclusionsThe prevalence of congenitally missing teeth fell within the range reported in previous studies. Second premolars were the most frequently congenitally missing teeth, with maxillary teeth more commonly affected than mandibular 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.