Primary study · included by 1 review

Evaluation of the frequency and characteristics of hypercementosis in the turkish population with cone-beam computed tomography.

Eren 2017 · Eren Y, Erdal O, Serdar B, et al. · Nigerian journal of clinical practice · 2017

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.