ArticleBMC oral health2026
Craniofacial size in individuals with supernumerary teeth: A multicenter geometric morphometric study.
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
backgroundAlthough tooth agenesis has been consistently associated with reduced craniofacial size, the craniofacial implications of supernumerary teeth remain unexplored. This study aimed to assess whether the presence, number, and location of supernumerary teeth are associated with craniofacial size in non-syndromic individuals, and whether these effects differ by sex.
methodsA retrospective multicenter study was performed using > 10,000 orthodontic records from Switzerland and Greece (2002-2023). The sample included 200 individuals with supernumerary teeth (125 males, 75 females; mean age 12.7 ± 5.7 years) and 200 age- and sex-matched controls. Supernumerary teeth were classified by number and location (maxilla vs. mandible). Craniofacial morphology was described on pre-treatment lateral cephalograms using 117 landmarks and semi-landmarks across different anatomical regions. The size of these regions and of the entire craniofacial complex was measured as the natural logarithm of centroid size (ln[CS]). Multiple linear regression models were applied to test associations between craniofacial size, sex, age, and supernumerary tooth number or location. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
resultsAge and sex were strong predictors of craniofacial size (P < 0.001), with larger dimensions in males and older individuals. The number of supernumerary teeth showed a small positive association with maxillary size (β = 0.011; P < 0.005), evident only when rare severe cases (> 2 teeth) were included, and no significant effects on the cranial base, mandible, or overall facial size. Location-specific analyses indicated that individuals with mandibular supernumerary teeth (n = 50) had larger mandibular (β = 0.016; P = 0.009) and maxillary dimensions (β = 0.022; P < 0.001), with males also showing slightly larger overall facial size (+ 2.5%; P = 0.014). Maxillary supernumerary teeth (n = 145) showed no significant craniofacial size differences.
conclusionSupernumerary teeth exert limited, region-specific effects on craniofacial size. While overall facial dimensions remain largely unchanged, mandibular supernumeraries, though uncommon, are associated with modest enlargement of both jaws in males. These findings contrast with the consistently reduced craniofacial size in cases with tooth agenesis, underscoring the differential developmental impact of different tooth number anomalies.
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.