ArticleCureus2024
Variations of the Lingula and Mandibular Ramus in the Context of Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study Supporting an Ethnic-Centric Approach to Orthognathic Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study of the Morphological and Morphometric Variations in the Mandibular Lingula and Its Clinical Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Lingual Fracture Pattern Following Sagittal Split With the Low and Short Medial Osteotomy.Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the ethnic variations concerning the lingula and ramus of the mandible, with particular emphasis on sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) in orthognathic surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study examined Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from the Kenyan and Malay populations. Lingula morphology was classified into four categories. Morphometric measurements included lingula size, height above the occlusal plane, distance to the second mandibular molar, and distance from its apex to all four mandible borders. Regarding the ramus of the mandible, the thickness of each cortical plate, trabecular bone, and overall thickness were determined at two points. Furthermore, points of fusion of cortical plates were determined in both the vertical and horizontal planes.
resultsAmong Kenyans, the triangular shape was most common (46.5%, n = 80 sides), while truncated was most common among Malays (34.4%, n = 57 sides). The overall mean size of lingula differed significantly between Kenyan (7.37 ± 2.19 mm) and Malay (4.14 ± 2.50 mm) populations (p<0.001). The lingula was more located postero-superiorly in Kenyans compared to Malays (p < 0.001). The mean distance from the distal aspect of the second mandibular molar to the lingula was 38.37 ± 4.98 mm among Kenyans, in contrast to 31.95 ± 0.03 mm among Malays (p < 0.001). The Malays exhibited a thicker mandible with a larger trabecular distance (5.99 ± 1.41 mm and 3.41 ± 1.29 mm, respectively) than Kenyans (5.28 ± 1.39 mm and 1.98 ± 0.98 mm, respectively) (p < 0.001). The points of fusion of the cortical plates differed significantly between Kenyans and Malays.
conclusionThis study focuses on two ethnic groups, Kenyans and Malays, and brings to light the ethnic-based differences in the position of the lingula and the dimensions of the mandibular ramus, both of which are essential considerations in orthognathic surgery. Preoperative consideration of such variations is warranted, potentially mitigating iatrogenic injuries and enhancing successful patient outcomes.
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.