2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-021-00349-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences in third molar development and angulation in class II subdivision malocclusions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of the included studies recruited the patients from universities [ 5 , 6 , 13 , 16 , 30 32 , 34 , 36 – 39 , 41 , 42 ]. Three studies recruited patients from orthodontic clinics [ 15 , 40 , 43 ]; two studies recruited patients from schools [ 14 , 33 ]; and one did not report the setting of participant recruitment [ 35 ] (Table 1 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Most of the included studies recruited the patients from universities [ 5 , 6 , 13 , 16 , 30 32 , 34 , 36 – 39 , 41 , 42 ]. Three studies recruited patients from orthodontic clinics [ 15 , 40 , 43 ]; two studies recruited patients from schools [ 14 , 33 ]; and one did not report the setting of participant recruitment [ 35 ] (Table 1 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All included studies used panoramic radiographs to evaluate DA. The majority of studies used the system proposed by Demirjian, Goldstein and Tanner (1973) [ 45 ] to evaluate DA [ 5 , 13 16 , 30 39 , 41 , 42 ], but among these studies, Akturk et al (2021) evaluated only third molars, and Jeong and Yang evaluated only the lower left canine. Two studies used the Nolla method (1960) [ 46 ] and evaluated only the stages of development of second molars [ 40 , 43 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation