ArticleOdontology2022
Implant-to-nasal floor dimensions projected by panoramic radiographs in the maxillary incisor-canine region: implications for dental implant treatment.
Article in Odontology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To make a comparison of panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) determinations of implant-to-nasal floor dimensions (INFD) in the anterior maxillary region, and to assist in determining in which tooth regions additional radiation exposure involved in CBCT scans is justifiable. Data related to INFD by PAN (PAN-D) at implant-to-nasal floor sites (central incisor, lateral incisor, canine) were gathered using 141 implant sites from 119 adult patients. INFD was estimated employing the CBCT technique as a reference method. PAN analysis equations were created for estimation of INFD by CBCT (CBCT-D) specific to implant sites. For assessment of the agreement between the PAN and CBCT methodologies, the Bland-Altman approach was employed. There were robust and significant odds ratios that implants in the canine region would fall into the underestimation groups of > 0 mm (4.5:1) (p = 0.003), > 0.5 mm (6.2:1) (p < 0.001), and > 1 mm (5.4:1) (p = 0.002). The root mean squared error (RMSE) and pure error (PE) were highest for the canine region (RMSE = 1.973 mm, PE = 2.20 mm). This research offers evidence of site-specific underestimations of available horizontal bone dimensions for implants when PAN is employed to assess the availability of vertical bone dimensions. The data suggest that it may be necessary to exclude canine regions when making assessment of INFD through PAN. Use of CBCT may, therefore, be recommended for all implant size and angulation estimations in this region.
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.