ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Morphometric Analysis of the Mandibular Canal and Its Anatomical Variants in a Chilean Subpopulation: Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- CBCT-Based Assessment of Mandibular Canal Position and Bone Morphology at Critical Osteotomy Sites for Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- CBCT Evaluation of the Mandibular Foramen According to Age, Sex, and Sagittal Skeletal Class in Growing Individuals.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- CBCT Evaluation of the Relationship Between Mandibular Molars and the Inferior Alveolar Canal in a Peruvian Population.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Clinical Implications of the Localization and Morphological Variability of the Mental Foramen-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Morphometric analysis of the mandibular incisive canal using cone beam computed tomography images.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of robotic-assisted implant placement in second molars combined with step drills and manual-automatic switching function: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Is the presence of accessory mandibular canals associated with the dimensions of the mandibular canal?Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Article
- The Influence of Craniometric Variation on the Position of Mandibular Foramen: A Cadaveric Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), contained within the mandibular canal (MC), is a structure prone to damage in clinical and surgical procedures on the mandible. This study aimed to analyze the MC morphology and its anatomical variants in a Chilean subpopulation using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). In total, 342 images from patients with the following parameters were observed: 120 kV, 9 mA, field of view 12 × 9 MC, and voxel size 0.12 mm. The average length of the MC recorded a mean value of 70.493 ± 4.987 mm on the right side and 70.805 ± 5.177 mm on the left side. The location of the mental foramen (MF) was most frequently found between the mandibular first and second premolar. The greatest bone thickness was found at the level of the basilar border of the 2MPM. The root closest to the MC was distal from the mandibular second molar. The lowest thickness was in the lingual area at 1MM. The prevalence of the anterior loop (AL) (61.5%) and the retromolar canal (RC) (17.5%) showed no significant differences between men and women. The results obtained showed that the morphology of the MC in the Chilean subpopulation can vary.
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.