ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
Global prevalence of odontogenic cysts: a systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Odontogenous Cysts and Ameloblastomas-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOdontogenic cysts constitute a common group of lesions affecting the jaws and represent a relevant clinical and epidemiological burden in oral and maxillofacial practice. Their occurrence varies across populations, and understanding global prevalence patterns is essential for improving diagnosis, treatment planning, and public health strategies. However, an updated synthesis of prevalence data across different regions remains limited.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following a predefined methodology, with a comprehensive search of PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published between 2000 and 2024. Eligible studies included observational designs (retrospective and and cross-sectional studies) that reported the prevalence of odontogenic cysts according to the WHO classification, with sufficient demographic and diagnostic data. Case reports, narrative reviews, and studies with small sample sizes or incomplete datasets were excluded. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were applied to ensure transparent and complete reporting of the review process. Risk of bias was independently assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tailored for prevalence and frequency studies.
resultsOf 445 records initially identified, 17 studies comprising large institutional and population-based samples met the inclusion criteria after screening and quality assessment. The studies originated from multiple continents, with retrospective designs predominating. The calculated global prevalence of odontogenic cysts was 13.8%. Radicular cysts were the most prevalent subtype, followed by dentigerous cysts. Risk of bias assessment indicated that most studies demonstrated low to moderate risk, primarily related to retrospective design and variability in diagnostic reporting.
conclusionThe findings demonstrate marked geographic variability in the prevalence and distribution of odontogenic cysts, underscoring the influence of diagnostic practices and reporting standards. These results highlight the need for standardized classification, uniform reporting protocols, and high-quality epidemiological studies to enhance comparability across regions and support evidence-based clinical and public health decision-making.
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.