ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2026
Condylar Morphology in Patients with Unilateral Maxillary Impacted Canines: A Panoramic Radiography Study.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between unilateral maxillary impacted canines (UMIC) and condylar morphology by comparing ipsilateral and contralateral condyles within affected individuals using panoramic radiography. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 364 patients with UMIC (169 with impacted right canines and 195 with impacted left canines). Panoramic radiographs were used to evaluate mandibular condylar morphology. Condyles were classified into four categories (round, angled, flat, and pointed) and additionally dichotomized as round or non-round for binary comparisons. Paired ipsilateral and contralateral comparisons were performed using McNemar's test for binary outcomes with analyses stratified by age (<20 and ≥20 years). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Age-stratified McNemar analyses demonstrated no statistically significant side-related differences in binary condylar morphology (round vs. non-round) between ipsilateral and contralateral sides of the patients (p>0.05). Descriptive evaluations showed that round condylar morphology was less prevalent in patients aged ≥20 years, whereas angled and pointed morphologies were more frequently observed compared to those aged <20 years, on both the ipsilateral and contralateral sides. Conclusion: Based on the present findings, UMIC alone does not appear to be associated with side-specific differences in condylar morphology. Further studies using advanced three-dimensional imaging techniques are needed to better characterize condylar morphology.
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.