ReviewThe Angle orthodontist2026
Maxillary sinus volume and dimensions in patients with and without impacted canines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Angle orthodontist, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To analyze differences in maxillary sinus volume (MSV) and dimensions (length, width, height) in patients with and without impacted canines. Materials and Methods: Five databases were searched up to August 2025 for studies analyzing MSV and/or dimensions in impacted canine patients using cone-beam computed tomography. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies. Certainty of evidence was determined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis was performed in MedCalc. Results: Five articles met the criteria: three graded "Good" and two "Moderate." The meta-analysis showed a significant MSV difference in unilateral palatally impacted canines (PICs), but not in buccally impacted canines (BICs). No significant maxillary sinus dimension (MSD) differences were observed, though bilateral PICs had fluctuating values. From pre- to post-treatment, MSV tended to increase in PICs. In PICs and BICs, the MS extended more frequently into the incisor/canine regions. A 1000 mm3 decrease in MSV was associated with a 1.7 × increase in PIC odds, and opposite for BICs. Each 1 mm increase in MS height tended to raise PIC odds by 22%. Conclusions: MSV tends to be smaller in PICs but not in BICs. Bilateral PICs suggest a reduced MSD, whereas unilateral PICs and BICs do not. MSV tended to increase after the treatment of PICs. PICs may be more common in either smaller or higher sinuses, whereas BICs may occur more frequently in larger sinuses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42091125What 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.