ArticleBMC research notes2026
Cephalometric evaluation of maxillary central incisor crown-root morphology in different skeletal malocclusion.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
objectivesTo compare the collum angle (CA) and labial surface angle (LSA) of the maxillary central incisors across different skeletal malocclusion classes and between genders.
methodsThis cross-sectional study screened lateral cephalogram of 504 patients above 18 years seeking for orthodontic consultation. Skeletal classification was based on ANB angle, Wits appraisal and Beta angle; Class II cases were further divided by maxillary incisor inclination to the SN plane. Landmarks were digitised using tpsDig, and measurements were obtained via a custom Python script. CA and LSA were compared across skeletal classes using ANOVA and between genders using t-tests.
resultsThe data of 432 patients (213 males, 219 females) were analysed after eligibility assessment. The mean CA were found to be 1.45°, -1.44°, 4.80°, and 1.20° for Class I, Class II with proclined incisors, Class II with retroclined incisors and Class III respectively, with a statistically significant difference in ANOVA (f = 7.9, p < 0.001). Similarly, mean LSA were 20.55°, 21.35°, 22.11°, and 20.83° for Class I, Class II with proclined incisors, Class II with retroclined incisors and Class III respectively, with no significant intergroup difference in ANOVA (f = 1.135, p = 0.335). No significant gender difference was found with t-test for the CA (t = 0.577, p = 0.564). However, the LSA was significantly greater in females compared to males (t = − 2.158, p = 0.031).
conclusionsSkeletal Class II patients with retroclined incisors exhibited a greater CA compared to other skeletal classes. The LSA was slightly greater in females than in males.
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.