ArticleScientific reports2026
Ultrasonographic and cephalometric assessment of tongue thickness across angle's classes of malocclusion in skeletal class I patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the association between tongue thickness and dental malocclusions, to compare the diagnostic reliability of ultrasonography (USG) and lateral cephalometry in tongue assessment, and explore potential sex-related differences in tongue morphology. Ninety participants (54 females, 36 males; mean age: 16.01 ± 2.26 years) with a skeletal Class I relationship were included and divided into three groups according to Angle’s classification: Class I, Class II, and Class III. Tongue thickness measurements were obtained from lateral cephalometric radiographs as cephalometric tongue thickness (CTT) and from USG as ultrasonographic tongue thickness (UTT). Intraobserver reliability was evaluated using Dahlberg’s formula and Cronbach’s alpha. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, independent-samples t-tests, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Pearson correlation analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Tongue thickness differed significantly among dental malocclusion groups (Class III> Class I > Class II; p < 0.001). For UTT, mean ± SD values were 35.97 ± 2.6 mm for Class I, 35.18 ± 2.2 mm for Class II, and 40.81 ± 1.9 mm for Class III. For CTT, mean ± SD values were 34.97 ± 4.6 mm for Class I, 31.63 ± 3.1 mm for Class II, and 39.06 ± 3.4 mm for Class III. UTT showed higher precision and lower variability than CTT (mean absolute difference: 0.32 mm vs. 0.75 mm; p = 0.002). Males had significantly greater tongue thickness than females (p < 0.05). Correlations between CTT and UTT within malocclusion groups were positive but not significant. Tongue thickness is significantly associated with sagittal dental malocclusion. USG provides a reliable and reproducible method for tongue assessment, demonstrating superior precision compared with lateral cephalometry. Incorporating ultrasonographic evaluation of the tongue into orthodontic planning may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and improve the predictability of clinical outcomes.
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.