ArticleHead & face medicine2010
Analysis of trigeminal nerve disorders after oral and maxillofacial intervention.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of the Effects of Bisphosphonates on Osteoblasts In Vitro.Calcified tissue international · 2025Pooled it
- Sensory change after implant surgery: related factors for recovery.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2022Article
- Somatosensory changes in Chinese patients after coronectomy vs. total extraction of mandibular third molar: a prospective study.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Article
- Profiling intraoral neuropathic disturbances following lingual nerve injury and in burning mouth syndrome.BMC oral health · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the anesthetic effect of epinephrine-free articaine and mepivacaine through quantitative sensory testing.Head & face medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is applied to evaluate somatosensory nerve fiber function in the spinal system. This study uses QST in patients with sensory dysfunctions after oral and maxillofacial surgery.
methodsOrofacial sensory functions were investigated by psychophysical means in 60 volunteers (30 patients with sensory disturbances and 30 control subjects) in innervation areas of the infraorbital, mental and lingual nerves. The patients were tested 1 week, 4 weeks, 7 weeks and 10 weeks following oral and maxillofacial surgery.
resultsQST monitored somatosensory deficits and recovery of trigeminal nerve functions in all patients. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between control group and patients were shown for cold, warm and mechanical detection thresholds and for cold, heat and mechanical pain thresholds. Additionally, QST monitored recovery of nerve functions in all patients.
conclusionQST can be applied for non-invasive assessment of sensory nerve function (Aβ-, Aδ- and C-fiber) in the orofacial region and is useful in the diagnosis of trigeminal nerve disorders in patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.