ArticleBMC oral health2021
Influence of bone anatomical morphology of mandibular molars on dental implant based on CBCT.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anatomic considerations for immediate implant placement in the mandibular posterior region -A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of implant position on clinical outcomes of two implant overdentures: a 3-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Retrospective CBCT-based anatomical assessment of mandibular first and second molars: a cross-sectional study with potential implications for immediate implant planning.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Based on Swin-Transformer and 3D U-Net: Implant Three-Dimensional Position Planning.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Accuracy of autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery in edentulous patients: a retrospective exploratory case series.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Expanded classification for immediate molar implant placement: Integrating root socket strategies beyond septal bone typing.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- CBCT dual-center investigation of relationship between the inferior alveolar canal and the lingual mandibular depression of the submandibular salivary glands.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Anatomical changes in alveolar bone structure following the extraction of the mandibular second molar using CBCT measurements.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of submandibular fossa depth and mandibular canal relationship with cone-beam computed tomography.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Anatomic Variations Important for Dental Implantation in the Mandible-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Quantitative and qualitative 3D analysis of mandibular lingual concavities: Implications for dental implant planning in the posterior mandible.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Relevant factors of posterior mandible lingual plate perforation during immediate implant placement: a virtual implant placement study using CBCT.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Effects of Crest Morphology on Lingual Concavity in Mandibular Molar Region: an Observational Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
- Accuracy of Implant Size Prediction Based on Edentulous Ridge Dimension on Cone-beam Computed Tomography - A Retrospective Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo apply CBCT to investigate the anatomical relationship between the mandibular molar and alveolar bone, aimed to provide clinical guidelines for the design of implant restoration.
methods201 CBCT data were reevaluated to measure height of the alveolar process (EF), width of the alveolar process (GH), width of the basal bone (IJ), the angle between the long axis of the first molar and the alveolar bone (∠a) and the angle between the long axis of the alveolar bone and basal bone (∠b). The angle and width were measured to determine the implant-prosthodontic classification of the morphology in the left lower first molar (36) and right lower first molar (46). All measurements were performed on the improved cross-sectional images.
resultsEF, GH and IJ were measured as (10.83 ± 1.31) mm, (13.93 ± 2.00) mm and (12.68 ± 1.96) mm for 36, respectively; and (10.87 ± 1.24) mm, (13.86 ± 1.93) mm and (12.60 ± 1.90) mm for 46, respectively. No statistical significance was observed in EF, GH, IJ, ∠a and ∠b between 36 and 46 (all P > 0.05). The morphology was divided into three categories including the straight (68.7-69.2%), oblique (19.9-20.4%) and concave types (11%). Each type was consisted of two subcategories.
conclusionsThe proposed classification could provide evidence for appropriate selection and direction design of the mandibular molar implant in clinical. The concave type was the most difficult to implant with the highest risk of lingual perforation. The implant length, width, direction required more attention.
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.