ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
A cone-beam computed tomography-based morphometric comparison of mandibular molars between Han Chinese and Malays.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Variations in tooth and mandibular morphometry exist among ethnic groups and may have clinical and anthropological implications. This study compared the tooth length and root-to-crown ratio (RCR) of mandibular first (M1) and second (M2) molars in Han Chinese and Malays, and assessed the root length relative to mandibular height (Root-Mandible Ratio @ R: Mand). Materials and methods: One hundred twenty-one cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were included. Relevant measurements were made using the CBCT software to obtain anatomical and clinical crown and root lengths. The measurements of the mesial and distal roots were averaged and used to calculate the RCR and R: Mand. Sixty-one CBCT scans of Malay patients were retrieved, and another 60 scans were of Han Chinese ethnicity. Results: There was a statistical difference in the tooth morphometry and their RCRs, with the Malays' findings being significantly higher than the Han Chinese; the exception being the clinical-RCR (c-RCR) of M2 and the R: Mand at M2. Most parameters were generally significantly larger at M1 than at M2. The mandible height at M1 was similar in both ethnic groups, but the R: Mand of M2 was significantly higher (50.69 %) in the Han Chinese because of their low mandibular height. The Han Chinese have shorter crowns and roots for M1 and M2, and mandible height compared to the Malays at M2. Conclusion: The observed morphometric differences may reflect underlying genetic and/or environmental factors and possible clinical impacts on facial morphology and occlusion between the two ethnic groups.
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.