Table 2.
Data comparison between studies regarding GPF position in relation to the maxillary molars
| GPF position (%) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anterior to M2 | Opposite M2 | Between M2 and M3 | Medial to M3 | Opposite M3 | Distal to M3 | ||||||||||||||
| Study | Population (number of GPF in the sample) | R | L | Total | R | L | Total | R | L | Total | R | L | Total | R | L | Total | R | L | Total |
| European studies (total GPF n = 3007) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Tomaszewska et al. 2014 (this study) | Polish (n = 2700) | – | 15.5 | 17.1 | 16.3 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.8 | – | 75.4 | 74.0 | 74.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 2.2 | ||||
| Nimigean et al. 2013 | Romanian (n = 200) | – | 9.0* | 15.0* | – | 73.0* | 3.0* | ||||||||||||
| Piagkou et al. 2012 | Greek (n = 107) | – | 16.6 | 17.0 | 16.8 | – | – | 76.9 | 75.5 | 75.7 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.5 | ||||||
| African studies (total GPF n = 880) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Osunwoke et al. 2011 | Nigerian (n = 300) | – | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 23.3 | 22.0 | 22.7 | – | 74.0 | 75.3 | 74.7 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 1.7 | ||||
| Ajmani, 1994 | Nigerian (n = 130) | – | 10.8 | 15.4 | 13.1 | 36.9 | 40.0 | 38.5 | 43.1 | 36.9 | 40.0 | 9.2 | 7.7 | 8.5 | – | ||||
| Hassanali & Mwaniki, 1984 | Kenyan (n = 250) | – | 10.4* | 13.6* | – | 76.0* | – | ||||||||||||
| Langenegger et al. 1983 | South African (n = 200) | – | – | 1.0 | 0.5 | – | 1.0 | 0.5 | – | 2.0 | 1.0 | 61.0 | 62.0 | 61.5 | 39.0 | 34.0 | 36.5 | ||
| Asian studies (total GPF n = 530) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Klosek & Rungruang, 2009 | Thai (n = 82) | (F): 14.3* (M): 0 | (F): 35.7*, † (M): 65.0*, † | (F): 35.7%* (M): 10.0* | – | (F): 14.3* (M): 25.0* | – | ||||||||||||
| Methathrathip et al. 2005 | Thai (n = 160) | 0.0* | 5.6*, † | 23.1* | – | 64.4*, † | 6.9* | ||||||||||||
| Wang et al. 1988 | Chinese (Taiwan) (n = 200) | 0.0‡ | 2.0‡ | 1.0 | 14.0 | 20.0 | 17 | 46.0 | 51.0 | 48.5 | – | 40.0 | 27.0 | 44.5 | – | ||||
| Brazilian studies (total GPF n = 260) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Ikuta et al. 2013 | Brazilian (n = 100) | – | – | – | 3.0* | 92* | 5* | ||||||||||||
| Chrcanovic and Custodio, 2010 | Brazilian (n = 160) | – | – | 6.2* | – | 54.9* | 38.9* | ||||||||||||
| Indian studies (total GPF n = 1813) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Dave et al. 2013 | Indian (W) (n = 200) | – | – | 6.0 | 1.0 | 3.5 | – | 88.0¶ | 94.0¶ | 87.5¶ | 12.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | ||||||
| Jotania et al. 2013 | Indian (W) (n = 120) | – | 5.0 | 3.3 | 4.2 | 23.3 | 11.7 | 17.5 | – | 71.7 | 85.0 | 78.3 | – | ||||||
| Sharma & Garud, 2013 | Indian (W) (n = 139) | – | 8.7§ | 8.7§ | 8.6 | – | – | 69.6§ | 77.1§ | 73.4 | 21.7 | 14.3 | 18.0 | ||||||
| D'Souza et al. 2012 | Indian (SW) (n = 80) | – | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 22.5 | 25 | 23.8 | – | 75.0 | 72.5 | 73.8 | – | ||||||
| Kumar et al. 2011 | Indian (N) (n = 200) | – | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | – | 85.0 | 85.0 | 85.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| Saralaya & Nayak, 2007 | Indian (SW) (n = 264) | – | 0.8 | 0 | 0.4 | 25 | 23.5 | 24.2 | – | 73.5 | 75.8 | 74.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ||||
| Sujatha et al. 2005 | Indian (S) (n = 142) | – | 0.9* | 13.1* | – | 86.0 | – | ||||||||||||
| Ajmani, 1994 | Indian (N) (n = 68) | – | – | 29.4 | 35.3 | 32.4 | 26.5 | 17.6 | 22.1 | 41.2 | 44.1 | 42.7 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 | ||||
| Westmoreland & Blanton, 1982 | Indian (E) (n = 600) | – | 8.7 | 10.6 | 9.7 | 34.7 | 32.7 | 33.7 | – | 50.7 | 50.7 | 50.7 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | ||||
| Studies from other regions | |||||||||||||||||||
| Fu et al. 2011 | American (n = 21) | – | 19.1*, † | 66.6* | – | 14.3*, † | – | ||||||||||||
| Jaffar & Hamadah, 2003 | Caucasian (Iraqi) (n = 100) | – | 12.0* | 19.0* | – | 55.0% | 14.0% | ||||||||||||
| Malamed & Trieger, 1983 | Mixed (n = 316) | – | 39.9* | – | – | 60.1* | – | ||||||||||||
GPF, greater palatine foramen; M2, second maxillary molar; M3, third maxillary molar; F, female; M, male; (N), north; (S), south; (E), east; (W), west – referring to the geographical region from which the study samples were collected.
The authors report total values only.
The authors describe this location as palatal instead of opposite.
The authors report it is ‘interproximal to the M1 and M2’.
This percentage is the sum of what the authors measure to be located between ‘the posterior half of the M2 and the anterior half of the M3’.
The authors report that the GPF is located ‘medial to the M3’, however according to the definition given in the manuscript this was reclassified to ‘opposite to the M3’.
‘R%’ and ‘L%’ – the ratio of the number of GPF in a particular relation to the molar teeth on the right or left sides to all GPF on that side.
‘total’ – ratio of the total number of GPF on both sides in a particular relation to the molar teeth to the total number of GPF in the examined group.
This table presents the data from 23 relevant studies. The study population from the work of Ajmani [17] has been divided in two, as the study analyses two different populations (African and Indian). Hence the 24 positions in the table.