ArticleScientific reports2024
Radiologic study of the distance between the maxillary central incisor root and the incisive canal according to skeletal malocclusion classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Root canal and nasopalatine canal morphology in a Guangxi population: a cone-beam CT study on regional variations.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the distance between the maxillary central incisor root and the incisive canal based on skeletal malocclusion classification and to analyze the morphology of the incisive canal using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Skeletal malocclusion was categorized into Class I, II, and III using lateral cephalometric analysis. Measurements of the distance between the maxillary central incisor root and the incisive canal were taken at two levels: 2 mm (L1) and 4 mm (L2) superior to the labial cementoenamel junction of the maxillary central incisor. At L1, the distance was found to be closer in the Class II group compared to the Class I or Class III groups. Similarly, at L2, the Class II group exhibited a closer distance than the Class III group. Interestingly, females showed a closer distance compared to males at both L1 and L2. Further analysis revealed a significant gender difference in the Class I and III groups, but not in the Class II group. These findings emphasize the significance of evaluating the distance between the maxillary central incisor root and the incisive canal in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion, regardless of gender.
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.