Cited by 142dental development and anomaliesDental Radiography and ImagingEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Morphologic and Demographic Predictors of Third Molar Agenesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Carter, K., Worthington, S.·2015·Journal of Dental Research

Abstract

We aimed to consolidate all available data on worldwide third molar agenesis frequencies, with a particular emphasis on exploring the factors leading authors to find contradictory results for the demographic and morphologic predictors of this anomaly. A total of 12,376 studies were originally identified, then narrowed down to 1,312 for title/abstract screening. On the basis of our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected 92 studies, containing 100 effect sizes and 63,314 subjects, for systematic review and metaregression. The worldwide rate of agenesis was found to be 22.63% (95% confidence interval = 20.64% to 24.76%), although the estimates ranged from 5.32% to 56.0%. Our subgroup analyses revealed that women are 14% more likely than men to have agenesis of ≥1 third molars and that maxillary agenesis was 36% more likely than mandibular agenesis in both sexes. Furthermore, we found that having agenesis of 1 or 2 molars was most common, while agenesis of 3 or 4 molars was least common. Finally, we found large differences among agenesis frequency depending on geographic region. This information is expected to be of use not only to clinicians and patients but also to policy makers, given the implications for third molar extraction protocols.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022034515581644

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Banks HV, 1934, Angle Orthod, 4, 223
  2. Garn SM, 1962, Angle Orthod, 32, 14
  3. Garn SM, 1966, Angle Orthod, 36, 55
  4. Holm S, 1979, Scand J Stat, 6, 65
  5. Kajii TS, 2004, Angle Orthod, 74, 337
  6. Keene HJ, 1965, Angle Orthod, 35, 289
  7. Lundstrom A, 1960, Trans Eur Orthod Soc, 36, 167
  8. Raloti S, 2013, Int J Res Med, 2, 38
  9. Ricketts RM, 1972, Angle Orthod, 42, 141
  10. Shapira J, 2000, Angle Orthod, 70, 290
  11. Uman LS, 2011, J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 20, 57

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–142 of 142

Metadata

Authors
Carter, K., & Worthington, S.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Dental Research
Published
2015-04-16
Volume
94
Issue
7
Pages
886-894
ISSN
  • 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-0591
OpenAlex
W1994849206
Cited by
141
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Dental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › dental development and anomalies
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Radiography and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Keywords
third molar agenesis, tooth agenesis, prevalence, sex differences, maxillary third molar, mandibular third molar, regional variation, third molar extraction
MeSH terms
Anodontia, Female, Humans, Male, Mandible, Maxilla, Molar, Third, Sex Factors, Logistic Models, Publication Bias

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