ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2024
Prevalence and Anatomical Characteristics of Bifid and Trifid Mandibular Canals: A Computer Tomography Analysis.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Injectable platelet-rich fibrin (iPRF) and postoperative outcomes in mandibular impacted third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Three-dimensional analysis of natural healing of mandibular bone cavities after cyst enucleation.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the prevalence and configuration of bifid (BMC) and trifid (TMC) mandibular canals using computed tomography (CT), describing the anatomical characteristics of the accessory canals, especially of the retromolar type. MATERIALS AND
methodsCT scans of 123 patients were analysed. BMCs were identified and the patterns of bifurcation were classified, including trifid canals. The width of accessory canals was measured. Retromolar canals were further classified according to their course and morphology, while their position and width were evaluated using linear measurements on CT images.
resultsThe majority of patients (53.6%) presented at least one BMC or TMC. 36.2% of mandibular canals were bifid, while 4.5% were trifid. The forward canals (12.6%) and retromolar canals (10.2%) were the most common among BMCs. In relation to the retromolar canals, 60% were vertical and 40% curved, with a mean width of 1.03 ± 0.28mm.
conclusionBMCs and TMCs are common 3D radiographic findings, so that they should be considered as anatomical variations, not anomalies. Preoperative CT or CBCT evaluation should aid in identifying these variations and analysing their position and course in surgical planning.
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.