Cross-sectional study finds no association between growth factor gene polymorphisms and third molar maturity in orthodontic patients, suggesting other genetic or environmental drivers.
Background Third molars exhibit the greatest variability maturity time in the human dental development and are commonly used as markers for dental age (DA) estimation. Dental development is well-known influenced by several genetic factors, including genes encoding growth factors. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the association between variability in third molar development, assessed through DA, and polymorphisms in genes encoding growth factors. Methods German participants were included. Third molar development was assessed from orthopantomography using the Hofmann method, with stages converted into DA values. Chronological age (CA) was recorded, and the difference between DA and CA (DA–CA) was calculated (delta) and used as the numerical outcome to represent developmental variability. Genomic DNA extracted from saliva was used to genotype polymorphisms in EGF , EGFR , TGFBR2 , and TGFB1 using real-time PCR. Statistical analysis included Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium testing and comparisons using one-way and two-ways ANOVA, adopting a 5% significance level. Results A total of 494 individuals were included (55.5% males; mean chronological age: 15.83 ± 2.30 years). All genetic polymorphisms were in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. No statistically significant associations were observed between the evaluated genetic polymorphisms and variability in third molar development considering combined, mandibular, or maxillary analyses ( p > 0.05; one-way ANOVA). The interaction between sex and genotypes showed no statistical mean differences for variability in third molar maturation according to sex and genotype ( p > 0.05; two-ways ANOVA). Conclusion The polymorphisms investigated in EGF , EGFR , TGFB1 , and TGFBR2 were not associated with variability in third molar development in the studied population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oppelt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: