ArticleBMC medical imaging2021
Implant-to-root dimensions projected by panoramic radiographs inthe maxillary canine-premolar region: implications for dental implant treatment.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CBCT Assessment for Dental Implant Surgery at the Maxilla: A Clinical Update.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgoundThis study aimed to compare panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) determinations of implant-to-root dimensions (IRD) in anterior and posterior maxillary regions, and to help determine in which instances increased radiation exposure from CBCT scans may be justified.
methodsIRD measured by PAN (PAN-D) from implant-to-root sites (central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, first premolar, and second premolar) was collected from 418 implant sites in 110 adults. The CBCT technique was used as the reference method for the estimation of IRD. The PAN analysis equations were developed using stepwise multiple regression analysis and the Bland-Altman approach was applied to assess the agreement between PAN and CBCT methods.
resultsThe odds ratio that an implant at the canine-to-first premolar (9.7:1) (P = 0.000) or at the first premolar-to-second premolar region (4.5:1) (P = 0.000) belongs to the underestimation group was strong and highly significant. The root mean square error (RMSE) and pure error (PE) were highest for the canine-to-first premolar (RMSE = 0.886 mm, PE = 0.45 mm) and the first premolar-to-second premolar region (4.5:1) (RMSE = 0.944 mm, PE = 0.38 mm).
conclusionsThis study provides evidence of site-specific underestimations of available horizontal bone dimensions for implants when assessed by PAN. These data suggest that the canines and first and second premolars may have to be excluded when assessing root angulations via PAN.
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.