ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Evaluation of safe areas for miniscrew use according to various skeletal anomalies with CBCT.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- CBCT Assessment of Palatal Safe Zones in Adults with Various Skeletal Patterns.International dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to determine safe areas to apply miniscrews in the interradicular region of the maxilla and mandible in individuals with various sagittal skeletal malocclusions. MATERIALS AND
methodsCone beam-computed tomography images of 159 individuals were used. Individuals were divided into three groups: Class I, Class II, and Class III. In the sagittal plane, 3-6-9-mm apical sections were determined from the alveolar crest apex. The buccal cortical bone thickness, interradicular distance, and buccolingual bone distances were measured.
resultsIn the buccal cortical bone thickness, we observed statistically significant differences between the classes except for the 1-1 region in the maxilla and all regions and sections in the mandible (p < 0.05). The differences in the buccolingual bone distance between classes were statistically significant, except for the 3-mm and 6-mm sections in the 3-4 and 4-5 regions of the maxilla, the 9-mm sections in the 1-2 and 2-3 regions, the 6-mm and 9-mm sections in the 3-4 region, and the 6-mm section in the 4-5 regions of the mandible (p < 0.05). The differences in the interradicular bone distance were statistically significant between the classes in all regions and sections of the mandible except the 6-mm sections in the 1-2 region and in all sections of the maxilla except the 6-mm sections in the 3-4 region (p < 0.05).
conclusionsWe observed significant differences in the buccal cortical bone thickness, interradicular bone distance, and buccolingual bone distance among individuals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the anatomy of interradicular regions and preventing complications.
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.