ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2026
Association Between Mandibular Ramus Morphometry and Mandibular Third Molar Impaction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association Between Mandibular Ramus Morphometry and Mandibular Third Molar Impaction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mandibular third molar impaction is a common clinical condition associated with various functional and pathological complications. Skeletal and morphometric characteristics of the mandible, particularly mandibular ramus dimensions, have been proposed as potential contributors to impaction risk; however, existing evidence remains inconsistent. Objective: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the available evidence on the association between mandibular ramus dimensions (height and width) and mandibular third molar impaction. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with the protocol prospectively registered in PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420251238995). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to October 16, 2025. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between mandibular ramus height and/or width and mandibular third molar impaction were included. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) estimation and Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Ramus height and width were analyzed separately as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses by study design and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. Results: Eleven studies comprising 3570 participants were included, of which nine contributed to the meta-analysis of ramus height and six to ramus width. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly smaller mandibular ramus height in individuals with impacted mandibular third molars compared with erupted controls (MD = -1.03 mm; 95% CI: -1.85 to -0.21; Conclusion: Reduced mandibular ramus height may be more consistently associated with mandibular third molar impaction than ramus width, although substantial heterogeneity limits definitive conclusions. While sexual dimorphism in ramus morphology is evident, its influence on impaction risk remains unclear. These findings highlight the need for standardized measurement protocols and well-designed longitudinal studies to further clarify the role of mandibular ramus morphology in third molar impaction.
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.