ArticleScientific reports2026
Cone-beam CT-based age-specific risk prediction model for maxillary anterior supernumerary teeth.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Maxillary supernumerary teeth (ST) frequently induce complications (e.g., dental irregularities, bone destruction), but precise risk stratification remains challenging. This retrospective study analysed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data from 217 patients, stratified into childhood (6-12 years) and adulthood (≥ 19 years). Morphological assessment showed that 77.1% of ST were conical, with a significantly higher proportion in females (88.3% vs. 73.4% in males). Age-stratified risk modelling revealed that root curvature was strongly associated with adult bone destruction (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.5), while ST number drove childhood dental anomalies (adjusted OR = 4.2). The adult bone destruction model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (outperforming non-stratified models), whereas the childhood dental anomaly model had modest performance (AUC = 0.69). These findings support age-specific clinical strategies: early extraction for high-risk children and prioritised surgical intervention for adults with ≥ 2 ST plus root curvature, thereby enhancing precision and reducing unnecessary treatments.
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.