ArticleBMC oral health2021
Three-dimensional alveolar bone assessment of mandibular molars for immediate implant placement: a virtual implant placement study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anatomic considerations for immediate implant placement in the mandibular posterior region -A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Implant stability following septal expansion in immediate mandibular molars: a pilot randomized clinical trial comparing piezoelectric surgery and osseodensification.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Thread Depth Effects on Stability and Positional Accuracy in Guided Immediate Implants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Trial
- The clinical effect of the digital guide in the early implant restoration of second molars.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2023Trial
- CBCT data relevant in treatment planning for immediate mandibular molar implant placement.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2025Article
- Anatomical changes in alveolar bone structure following the extraction of the mandibular second molar using CBCT measurements.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk Assessment of Nasal Cavity Perforation in the Maxilla: A Virtual Implant Placement Study Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Five-year outcomes of immediate implant placement for mandibular molars with and without chronic apical periodontitis: A retrospective study.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Relevant factors of posterior mandible lingual plate perforation during immediate implant placement: a virtual implant placement study using CBCT.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Assessment of Maxillary Molars Interradicular Septum Morphological Characteristics as Criteria for Ideal Immediate Implant Placement-The Advantages of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo elucidate the anatomical features of the mandibular molar region to allow safe immediate implant placement.
methodsCone-beam computed tomography images of 150 patients (600 teeth) were reviewed retrospectively. The virtual implants were placed in the mandibular first and second molar region. The anatomic structures of the mandible and inter-radicular septum were both categorized into three types. The relationship between implant and inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), and the horizontal distance from the implant surface to the bone wall were analyzed. Variables were compared using a student's t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsType U (39.0%) and type S (56.0%) were the most common in the first molar, while type U (67.7%) and type M (54.7%) had the highest prevalence rate in the second molar. The mean distance from the level where the virtual implant was completely surrounded by bone to IAN was 7.06 mm. The mean horizontal widths from the implant to the mesial and distal socket wall were 1.59 mm and 1.89 mm. The widths of the inter-radicular septum and the distances from implant to the buccal and lingual plate on different sections were significantly associated with tooth position (P < .05).
conclusionsIn the first molar region, the implant is suggested to be placed in the center of the inter-radicular septum, while in the second molar region, the mesial root socket could be considered. Immediate implant placement in the mandibular second molar sockets shows a high risk of IAN injury, lingual perforation, and inadequate primary stability.
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.