ArticleBMC oral health2022
Comparison of alveolar bone width and sagittal tooth angulation of maxillary central incisors in Class I and Class III canine relationships: a retrospective study using CBCT.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is there really a relationship between maxillary and mandibular incisor inclination and the amount of surrounding cortical alveolar bone? a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- CBCT-based virtual surgical planning for predicting risk factors and preventive strategies of buccal plate perforation in maxillary premolar implant placement.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Derived Alveolar Anatomy for Immediate Implant Planning: Thickness, Concavity, and Angulation Patterns: A Comprehensive Evaluation.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Anterior alveolar bone and tooth inclination in different skeletal patterns: a cone-beam computed tomography study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of stress and displacement of maxillary canine during the single canine retraction in the maxillary first premolar extraction cases- A finite element study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Case report and literature review: autonomous robotic system assisted palatal implantation at an anterior teeth site compromised by periapical cyst.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCanine relationship is a key reference identifying anterior malocclusion and an important implication for evaluating preimplantation bone morphology at maxillary esthetic zone. This study aimed to compare the differences of maxillary central incisor-related measurements (alveolar bone thickness and tooth sagittal angulation) between Class I and Class III canine relationship and further explore the risk factors for immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data.
methodsCBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files of 107 patients (54 with Class I canine relationship and 53 with Class III canine relationship) were collected and the alveolar bone thickness at mid-root (mid-root buccal thickness/MBT; palatal/MPT), apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; palatal/APT) and sagittal angulation (SA) of the maxillary central incisor at the examined side were measured on the mid-sagittal observation plane. Descriptive statistical analysis and frequency distributions of the measurements based on Class I or Class III canine relationship were established. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test, independent samples t test and Pearson correlation test with the significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe frequency distributions of maxillary central incisors' MPT, ABT, APT and SA showed significant differences between Class I and Class III canine relationships (p = 0.030, 0.024, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). MPT (2.48 ± 0.88 mm vs. 3.01 ± 1.04 mm, p = 0.005), APT (6.79 ± 1.65 mm vs. 8.47 ± 1.93 mm, p = 0.000) and SA (12.23 ± 5.62° vs. 16.42 ± 4.49°, p = 0.000) were significantly smaller in patients with Class III canine relationship. Moreover, SA showed a strong positive correlation with APT (R = 0.723, p = 0.000) and a moderate negative correlation with ABT (R = - 0.554, p = 0.000).
conclusionsIn populations with Class III canine relationship, maxillary central incisors were significantly more labially inclined and have a thinner palatal bone plate at the apex compared with Class I relationship. Clinicians should avoid palatal perforation during immediate implantation at sites of originally protrusive maxillary incisors.
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.