ReviewImaging science in dentistry2025
Prevalence and radiographic features of Haller cells: A systematic review.
Review in Imaging science in dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: Haller cells (HCs) represent an anatomical variation in the maxillofacial region, frequently linked to sino-nasal pathologies. Numerous regional studies have reported the prevalence of HCs using various imaging modalities. This systematic review aims to evaluate the prevalence of HCs as reported in the existing literature. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out across multiple databases, including ScienceDirect, PubMed, Scopus, Dentistry and Oral Sciences (EBSCO), Ovid, and LILACS. Different keyword combinations employing Boolean logic were used to identify relevant studies. Data extraction procedures adhered closely to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist for cross-sectional studies. Results: After data extraction, 9 studies qualified for critical analysis. The highest reported prevalence of HCs was 66.84%, whereas the lowest was 16%. Across these 9 studies, the average prevalence was 32.40%. Unilateral HCs predominated in most reported studies. Four studies provided details regarding the shapes of HCs, while size information was available in three studies. Eight of the 9 included studies demonstrated strong evidence quality according to the CASP checklist. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of radiographic scans analyzed in published studies revealed the presence of HCs. Unilateral HCs were found to be more common than bilateral HCs. The most frequently reported shapes were round, ovoid, and teardrop, with the majority measuring between 2 and 4 mm.
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.