ArticleBMC oral health2026
Demographic variation of styloid process morphology in panoramic radiography.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElongation of the styloid process (SP) is frequently discussed in the context of Eagle syndrome (ES), with a length threshold of ≥ 30 mm commonly cited as indicative of elongation. However, this criterion is largely derived from heterogeneous imaging modalities and may not adequately account for demographic variability or the projection-related limitations of panoramic radiography. Given that panoramic radiographs (PRs) represent the most common first-line imaging modality in dental and maxillofacial practice, interpretation of SP morphology in this setting warrants critical evaluation. The aim of this study was to characterize demographic variation in SP morphology on standardised PRs and to explore whether commonly cited length thresholds should be interpreted with caution in this imaging modality. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of 350 standardised PRs was performed. Bilateral measurements included SP length, width, angulation, distance to anatomical reference points, segmentation according to the Langlais classification, and calcification patterns. Data were stratified by sex and age (≥ 40 vs. <40 years). Statistical comparisons were conducted using Student's t-test and chi-square test (α = 0.05). A post hoc power analysis confirmed adequate statistical power for primary outcome comparisons.
resultsSignificant morphological variability was observed across demographic groups. Mean SP lengths exceeded the frequently cited 30 mm threshold in all subgroups. Older individuals demonstrated greater elongation, width, angulation, and advanced calcification patterns compared to younger individuals (p < 0.05). Males exhibited significantly greater linear dimensions than females (p < 0.05). Bilateral elongation was common within the cohort.
conclusionsSP morphology showed substantial demographic variation on standardised PRs. In this non-symptom-selected cohort, measurements frequently exceeded the commonly cited 30 mm threshold, suggesting that length-based cut-offs should be interpreted cautiously on panoramic imaging. Clinical correlation remains essential, and advanced imaging may be considered in selected cases.
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.