Primary study · included by 1 review

Patil 2018

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.45 [1.67, 6.99]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Tooth-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 0.37 [0.06, 2.39]2 studiesGRADE not reported
Tooth-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 0.34 [0.04, 2.61]2 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.76 [3.46, 4.07]10 studies · 14881 participantsGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 4.11 [2.11, 7.86]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.78 [1.87, 7.49]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 5.65 [3.56, 8.87]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.44 [1.61, 7.20]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 4.40 [2.28, 8.32]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Tooth-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 0.25 [0.06, 1.00]3 studies · 52666 participantsGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.65 [1.80, 7.29]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.89 [2.04, 7.30]10 studies · 14881 participantsVery low
Tooth-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 0.13 [0.10, 0.17]2 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 4.33 [2.23, 8.26]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Tooth-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 0.203 [0.165, 0.242]3 studies · 52666 participantsGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.39 [1.53, 7.32]9 studiesGRADE not reported
Patient-level prevalence of hypercementosis
Radiographic assessment (periapical, panoramic or CBCT) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)
Prevalence (%) 3.24 [1.58, 6.52]9 studiesGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.