MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wisdom tooth developmental timing and eruption are independent of first molar size in a study of contemporary Canadian children

2020· article· en· W3016509323 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia C. Boughner, Denver Marchiori, Garnet V. Packota

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpactionCrown (dentistry)MolarMedicineDentistryTooth eruptionOrthodonticsRetrospective cohort studyPermanent teethStatistical significanceSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objective Third molar (M3) impaction is a common dental health concern worldwide. Classically, M3 impaction risk is higher with reduced jaw space for M3 eruption. Recently, we have shown that late‐developing M3s are also at higher risk of impaction. The factors that influence M3 developmental timing remain enigmatic. Past work has indicated that the length of the developing first molar (M1) exerts an inhibitory effect, resulting in a smaller and later‐forming M2 and M3. Here we test the hypothesis that M1 crown size predicts M3 developmental timing (advanced, or delayed) and M3 eruption (vs. impaction) in a group of young Canadian dental patients. Methods We sampled retrospective cone beam computed tomography scans and panoramic radiographs taken for clinical diagnostic purposes of multi‐ethnic patients aged 6–24 years residing in Western Canada. Post‐exclusion criteria, we studied 99 patients, sampling 327 quadrants from 57 girls and 42 boys, at two distinct times that allowed us to know if an M3 had properly erupted. Using Horos and Xoran i‐Cat software, we scored permanent molar development using a 9‐stage classification after Demirjian’s system. We measured mesiodistal lengths of M1, M2 and M3 crowns. In SPSS v.25, we calculated a Generalized Estimating Equation model through a multivariable linear regression to test if M1 crown length predicted M3 developmental timing and eruption status. We also tested other variables including patient sex and jaw type (upper; lower). Significance was set to p<0.05. Results Crown length ratios (M3:M1 by M2:M1) did not predict M3 impaction (Wald Chi‐Square [Wald X 2 ]=0.124, p=0.73) or M3 developmental stage (M2:M1, Wald X 2 =0.228, p=0.63; M3:M1, Wald X 2 =3.253, p=0.07). Patient sex was not associated with either M3 developmental timing or eruption. Jaw type was significantly associated with M3 eruption status (Wald X 2 =13.573, p=0.000) but not with M3 developmental timing (Wald X 2 =0.644, p=0.42). Among the 12 different patterns of M1:M2:M3 ratios that we observed, 3 were significantly more prevalent in the mandible versus the maxilla. Relative to M1 crown length, if M2 crown length increased by 10%, the adjacent M3 crown lengthened by 7% (±3%), indicating that M2 increased “faster” than M3. Absolute M2 crown length significantly predicted M3 crown length (Wald X 2 =14.04, p=0.000) while absolute M1 crown length did not (Wald X 2 =0.701, p=0.40). Conclusions M1 crown length does not predict early versus late M3 development or M3 eruption status, thus M1 does not appear to predispose a given M3 towards impaction. However, whether an M3 forms in the lower jaw or upper jaw does appear to increase impaction risk, but not by delaying M3 development. Instead of a local variable, some systemic factor likely regulates timing of human permanent molar development. Compared to past work in non‐human primates and other mammals, modern human children show a wider range of molar crown size ratios and thus greater phenotypic variation within the molar row, of which M2 crown length appears most labile. Support or Funding Information University of Saskatchewan Colleges of Dentistry & Medicine, and the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207