Table 6. | Keros classification in studies conducted in Turkish population |
| Study |
Imagine technique |
Number of patients |
Type I (%) |
Type II (%) |
Type III (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaplanoglu et al. [4] | CT | 500 | 13.4 | 76.1 | 10.5 |
| Bayrak et. al. [6] | CBCT | 225 | 13.8 | 75.1 | 11.1 |
| Erdem et al. [8] | CT | 136 | 8.1 | 59.6 | 32.3 |
| Karatay et al. [16] | CT | 522 | 30.8 | 66.7 | 2.4 |
| Asal et al. [22] | CT | 300 | 16 | 67.7 | 16.3 |
| Erdogan et al. [23] | CT | 110 | 10 | 67.7 | 22.3 |
| Yenigun et al. [25] | CT | 184 | 26 | 56 | 18.9 |
| Güler et al. [26] | CT | 300 | 26 | 66 | 8 |
| Sari et al. [27] | CT | 516 | 20.3 | 51.9 | 27.7 |
| Yazici et al. [28] | CT | 150 | 9.3 | 54 | 36.7 |
| Present Study | CBCT | 385 | 17.8 | 71.9 | 10.3 |
CT = computed tomography; CBCT = cone-beam computed tomography. |
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)