ArticleCureus2022
Assessment of Bone Mineral Density in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Study.
Article in Cureus, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Submental abscess following anterior mandibular implantation: A case report and comprehensive literature review.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the effects of diabetes on tooth radiodensity, bond strength of root canal sealers to dentin, and interfacial elemental distribution.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The effect of type 2 diabetes on periapical osteoclast-related factors during axial tooth movement.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Association Between Coronary Artery Calcium Score and Bone Mineral Density in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Different Visceral Fat Area.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The main purpose of the study was to assess and compare bone mineral density (BMD) at prospective implant sites in the mandible in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and non-diabetic patients using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and methodology A total of 40 patients were included in this type of cross-sectional study. They were divided into two groups, A and B, according to their haemoglobin A1c values. Group A consisted of patients with HbA1c between the range of 6.1%-8% and group B had patients with no history of T2DM. CBCT scans were made of the mandibular arches of both the patients to evaluate the BMD at lingual and buccal cortical plates and the trabecular regions in two successive slices with the assistance of PlanMeca Romexis software (PlanMeca Romexis®, Helsinki, Finland). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of continuous data. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the groups. Results There were no differences that were statistically significant between the two cohorts according to the Mann-Whitney U test at buccal cortical plate points 1 and 2. However, the diabetes group's mean bone density at implant sites-A, B, C, D, and E at trabeculae points 1 and 2 was considerably (7p>0.001) lower than the non-diabetic groups. The mean bone density of the diabetes group was marginally but significantly (p=0.009) lower than the non-diabetic group at lingual cortical plates. Conclusion Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus show significantly lower bone mineral density in the lingual cortical plate and trabecular region, however, implant therapy can be performed with certain mentioned guidelines in such regions. In the buccal cortical region, the bone mineral density is seen to be unaffected.
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.