Table 2. The association between WNT10A variants and dental age.

	Model 1			Model 2
	β	95% CI	P-value	β	95% CI	P-value
WNT10A variants (without WNT10A variants; ref.)	−1.96	−3.76, −0.17	0.03*	−1.50	−2.59, −0.42	0.01*
Age	0.61	0.34, 0.89	0.00	0.65	0.49, 0.82	0.00**
Gender (females; ref.)	0.85	−0.51, 2.20	0.21	0.55	−0.24, 1.34	0.16
Number of missing teeth				−0.30	−0.37, −0.23	0.00**
Abnormal size or shape (yes; ref.)				1.15	0.18, 2.13	0.02*
Filled teeth				−0.55	−0.95, −0.14	0.01*
Ectodermal features (yes; ref)				−0.01	−1.03, 1.00	0.98
Presence of nonsense WNT10A variant (without WNT10A variants; ref.)	−1.03	−2.01, −0.06	0.04*	−0.68	−1.30, −0.06	0.03*
Age	0.56	0.28, 0.84	0.00**	0.64	0.47, 0.82	0.00**
Gender (females; ref.)	0.97	−0.36, 2.30	0.15	0.64	−0.17, 1.45	0.12
Number of missing teeth				−0.29	−0.36, −0.21	0.00**
Abnormal size or shape (yes; ref.)				1.23	0.22, 2.24	0.02*
Filled teeth				−0.65	−1.08, −0.22	0.00**
Ectodermal features (yes; ref.)				0.16	−0.90, 1.22	0.77

Abbreviations: β, regression coefficients, CI, confidence interval, ref., reference.

* Statistically significant P<0.05; ** Statistically highly significant P<0.01. Dental age was calculated if both matching mandibular teeth were missing by scoring them as follows: (a) as a developmental stage calculated from regression equations developed by Nyström et al,⁴⁵ (b) as a developmental stage of the (left) matching maxillary tooth.

Model 1 was the association between WNT10A variants and dental age is adjusted for age and gender.

Model 2 was additionally adjusted for the number of missing teeth, abnormal size or shape, number of filled teeth and the presence of ectodermal features.

The presence of nonsense WNT10A variants was classified as 0 – without WNT10A variants; 1 – missense and miscellaneous WNT10A variants; 2 – nonsense WNT10A variants.