ArticleHeliyon2022
Correlation of radiomorphometric indices of the mandible and mandibular angle fractures.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of mandibular third molar positions, ramus height, and gonial angle on panoramic radiographs: a retrospective cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Risk factors of mandibular angle fractures based on digital reduction method: a retrospective analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A 2 year follow-up self-controlled study on morphological changes in the musculoskeletal apparatus after conservative treatment of condylar head fracture.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The influence of age, sex, and mandibular morphometric parameters on cortical bone width and erosion: a panoramic radiography study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- Correlation between Malocclusion and Mandibular Fractures: An Experimental Study Comparing Dynamic Finite Element Models and Clinical Case Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the correlation of radiomorphometric indices of the mandible and mandibular angle fractures (MAFs) in an Iranian population. This retrospective study was conducted on 3D computed tomography (CT) scans of 118 patients between 18 to 60 years. The images were divided into two groups with MAFs and other types of mandibular fractures (non-MAF). The gonial angle, ramus height, condylar neck width, minimum ramus width, and mandibular length were all measured using MARCO PACS software. Age, gender, and presence and eruption status of third molar at the fracture side were all recorded. The correlation between these parameters and MAF was analyzed using R software (alpha = 0.05). Of all patients, 41 samples had MAF. The two groups were not significantly different regarding the mean age and gender (P > 0.05). The mean size of gonial angle and ramus height in the MAF group were significantly larger, and smaller than the corresponding values in the non-MAF group, respectively (P < 0.001). The median minimum ramus width in the MAF group was significantly smaller than that in the non-MAF group (P = 0.001). Patients with a large gonial angle had 6.6 times higher odds of MAF compared with other fracture types (P = 0.046). Condylar neck width, mandibular length, and erupted third molars had no significant correlation with type of fracture. Presence of impacted third molar increased the odds of MAF by 5.55 times. Patients with a large gonial angle, short ramus height, minimum ramus width, and impacted third molar are more susceptible to MAF. Surgeons can use these indices to predict the risk of MAF in trauma patients with such facial characteristics, and make a diagnosis by radiographic modalities.
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.