ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of mandibular ramus asymmetry in patients with unilateral congenital tooth agenesis.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate mandibular ramus asymmetry in individuals with unilateral congenital tooth agenesis using panoramic radiography. The results were compared with individuals without agenesis and with bilateral agenesis.
methodsThe study included 150 individuals in three groups [no agenesis, bilateral, unilateral]. Condylar height, ramus height, and mandibular length were measured on panoramic radiographs using Viewbox-4, and asymmetry indices were calculated with the Habets formula. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS 27.0 with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsNo significant differences were observed among groups in linear measurements [p > 0.05]. However, the unilateral agenesis group showed higher ramus and mandibular asymmetry indices [RAI: 2.05 ± 1.97; MAI: 2.15 ± 1.79] compared to the bilateral agenesis [RAI: 1.50 ± 1.23; MAI: 1.40 ± 1.03] and control groups [RAI: 0.89 ± 0.87; MAI: 0.82 ± 0.74] [p < 0.001]. Ramus asymmetry was strongly correlated with overall mandibular asymmetry. In posterior unilateral agenesis cases, condylar and mandibular asymmetries were significantly greater [CAI: 7.67 ± 5.43 vs. 3.98 ± 3.11, p = 0.019; MAI: 2.70 ± 2.14 vs. 1.40 ± 1.11, p = 0.023]. Condylar asymmetry was also higher in individuals with mandibular agenesis than those with maxillary agenesis [p = 0.022].
conclusionUnilateral congenital tooth agenesis, particularly in posterior or mandibular cases, was associated with increased mandibular asymmetry. Ramus height was significantly associated with overall mandibular asymmetry. Panoramic radiography can be considered a practical first-line tool, while CBCT may be reserved for more detailed evaluation when necessary.
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.