<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
doi: 10.2319/022807-104.1
pmid: 18416616
AbstractObjective: To test the null hypothesis that American blacks do not have a higher frequency of extra permanent teeth than whites.Materials and Methods: Panoramic radiographs of adolescent orthodontic patients, either American whites (n = 1100) or American blacks (n = 600), were reviewed systematically.Results: The frequencies of supernumerary incisors, premolars, and molars were each significantly more common in blacks. While incisors are the most common extra teeth in whites (and extra molars are least common), just the opposite ranking occurs in blacks. Overall, the odds ratio was 8.8 (95% confidence limits = 3.9, 20.0), confirming that American blacks are significantly more likely (almost 9 times more likely) to possess extra permanent teeth than American whites.Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. Both the frequencies and the patterns of extra permanent teeth are significantly different in blacks and whites, suggesting different frequencies of the relevant (but unidentified) factors governing the developmental mechanisms that result in hyperdontia.
Male, Adolescent, Molar, United States, White People, Black or African American, Incisor, Epidemiologic Studies, Sex Factors, Tooth, Supernumerary, Radiography, Panoramic, Humans, Bicuspid, Female
Male, Adolescent, Molar, United States, White People, Black or African American, Incisor, Epidemiologic Studies, Sex Factors, Tooth, Supernumerary, Radiography, Panoramic, Humans, Bicuspid, Female
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 33 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |