Cited by 13Dental Radiography and ImagingEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsDental materials and restorations

Prevalence of Cervical Enamel Projection and Its Impact on Furcation Involvement in Mandibular Molars: A Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography Study in Koreans

Open access
Lim, Hyun‐Chang, Jeon, Seok‐Kyun, Cha, Jae‐Kook, Lee, Jung‐Seok, Choi, Seong‐Ho, Jung, Ui‐Won·2016·The Anatomical Record

Abstract

This study evaluated the prevalence of cervical enamel projections (CEPs) in mandibular molars, and analyzed the correlation between CEPs and furcation involvement (FI) based on cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data in a Korean population. CBCT images obtained from March 2012 to August 2012 were analyzed. CEPs and FI on the buccal and lingual surface were classified in three‐dimensionally reconstructed images and cross‐sectional views, and the correlation between these two parameters was analyzed. In total, 982 teeth in 425 patients were analyzed. The overall prevalence rate of CEPs was 76% (71% and 27% on the buccal and lingual surfaces, respectively). Grade I CEPs were the most common, followed by CEPs of grades II and III. There was a statistically significant, but negligible correlation between the CEP grade and the degree of FI on the buccal and lingual surfaces. Within the limitations of this cross‐sectional study, a high prevalence of CEPs were found in a Korean population, but the role of CEPs in provoking FI appeared not to be decisive. Anat Rec, 299:379–384, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ar.23301

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lim, H., Jeon, S., Cha, J., Lee, J., Choi, S., & Jung, U.
Affiliations
  • Kyung Hee University (KR)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
Corresponding author
Jung, Ui‐Won
Venue
The Anatomical Record
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-29
Volume
299
Issue
3
Pages
379-384
ISSN
  • 1932-8486 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-8494
OpenAlex
W2291244061
Cited by
13
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Anatomical Record (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2014R1A1A1A05002953)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Radiography and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
Keywords
furcation involvement, mandibular molars, prevalence, Korean population, dental morphology
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dental Enamel, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Molar, Furcation Defects, Asian People, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Young Adult, Republic of Korea, Anatomic Variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review