ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2024
Impacted mandibular third molars: a comparison of orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography imaging in predicting surgical difficulty.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 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.
- Article
- Is chronological age predictable on panoramic images using the Demirjian method on third molars? Insights from a Turkish population-based study.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of OPG and CBCT in the Evaluation of Impacted Mandibular third Molar Proximity to the Mandibular Canal.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
- Risk Assessment of Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Exposure: A Systematic Review.Acta medica Philippina · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the predictive value of orthopantomography (OPG) for the difficulty of extracting impacted mandibular third molars, in comparison with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
methodsIn this descriptive quantitative investigation, two oral and maxillofacial radiologists evaluated OPG and three-dimensional CBCT images according to the Pell-Gregory and Winter classifications. The results for the classification were compared using the chi-square test, and the prediction of difficulty was assessed using the Pederson scale, with a significance level of p< 0.05.
resultsThe study included 30 patients (14 men and 16 women), providing a total of 53 samples of impacted mandibular third molars. Of these, 30 (56.6%) were from the right side and 23 (43.4%) from the left. There was a statistically significant difference between the OPG and CBCT images concerning their relation to the mandibular ramus (p< 0.05). However, evaluations based on occlusal lines and angulation showed no significant differences (p> 0.05). According to the Pederson scale, significant differences were observed between OPG and CBCT in predicting extraction difficulty (p< 0.05).
conclusionCBCT offered a more accurate assessment of the surgical difficulty associated with mandibular third molars than OPG. OPG views frequently failed to adequately visualize the region of the mandibular ramus, influencing the perceived difficulty of mandibular third molar surgery. In certain cases, the use of CBCT imaging is crucial.
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.