ReviewImaging science in dentistry2022
Prevalence and extension of the anterior loop of the mental nerve in different populations and CBCT imaging settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Imaging science in dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new radiological classification of the mental foramen in the edentulous mandible: clinical and surgical implications.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve within the mentonian foramen: a scoping review.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based automatic segmentation of the mandibular canal on panoramic radiographs: A multi-device study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify the prevalence and extension of the anterior loop (AL) of the mental nerve in different populations and according to different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging settings. Materials and Methods: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest were searched. The main inclusion criterion was ALs evaluated in CBCT images. The quality of studies was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias checklist. Subgroup analyses were conducted for sex, side, continent, voxel size, field of view, and type of CBCT-reconstruction images with a random-effects model. Results: Sixty-three studies with 13,743 participants (27,075 hemimandibles) were included. An AL was found in 40.6% (95% CI: 32.8%-48.9%, Conclusion: AL was a relatively common finding. The voxel size and fields of view of CBCT devices were adequate for assessing AL; however, a 2-mm safety margin from anatomical structures (such as the AL) could be recommended to be considered when using CBCT imaging.
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.