ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluating palatal mucosal thickness in orthodontic miniscrew sites using cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone-Screw-Force Interactions in Palatal Orthodontic Mini-Implants: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework for Primary Stability and Biomechanically Driven Site Selection.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Buccal Cortical Bone Thickness in the Posterior Mandible Across Skeletal Patterns: A CBCT Study in a Sample of Iranians.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- CT-based three-dimensional morphometric analysis of the bony palate and hard palatal mucosa in female orthognathic surgery candidates.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of Palatal Masticatory Mucosa Thickness in the Saudi Population of a Teaching Hospital in the Eastern Province: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional CBCT Study.Dentistry journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo comprehensively analyze the palatal thickness of soft tissues and determine optimal regions for the placement of palatal orthodontic miniscrews.
methodsCone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images on the coronal plane were obtained from 60 patients (30 female, 30 male; age range 19-45; mean age 32 ± 11), with 3-mm intervals in the regions of the canine (Ca), first premolar (Pr1), second premolar (Pr2), midpoint between the first and second molars (M1-M2), first molar (M1), second molar (M2) and midpalate.
resultsThe mucosal thickness measurements between the teeth showed significantly greater thickness in the Ca region at the 3 mm point, in the Pr1 region at the 6 mm point, and in the Pr2 region at the 9 and 12 mm points. At the 9 mm point, the Pr1 region demonstrated greater thickness than the M1-M2 whereas the Pr2 region was thicker than the M1 and M1-M2 regions. At the 12 and 15 mm points, the thickness increased from anterior to posterior: the Pr1 region was thinner than the Pr2, M1, and M2 regions and the Pr2 region was thinner than the M2 region. A schematization was devised for the optimal areas recommended for miniscrews in the palatal region.
conclusionThe mucosal thickness in the palatal region increases from anterior to posterior except the midpalatal region. Based on the results, in terms of soft tissue, the most suitable place for miniscrew placement is 6 mm from the gingival margin of the teeth and in the median portion of the palate. The findings may guide clinicians in choosing the optimal sites for palatal mini-implants.
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.