ArticleCureus2024
Three-Dimensional Assessment of the Condylar Position in Different Malocclusions Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The role of the condylar position in the correct functioning of the stomatognathic system has been the center of the study. Using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), this study looked at the three-dimensional (3D) position of the condylar bone in patients from Class I, Class II, Division 1, and Division 2. Materials and methods This cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted using 102 CBCT records, with 34 records allocated to each category of malocclusion classification, such as dentoskeletal Class I, skeletal Class II, and dental Class II, Division 1 and 2. CBCT scans were conducted utilizing a Carestream New Generation CBCT apparatus (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, Georgia) in accordance with a standardized protocol (operating at a voltage of 120 kV, a current of 80 mA, a seven-second scan time, a field of view (FOV) measuring 10 x 10 cm, and a resolution of 0.2 voxels, and 1-mm slice thickness). The condylar position was assessed as the superior, inferior, and medial distance of the condyle from the glenoid fossa, along with the condylar angle. The distance from the most anterior point on the anterior surface of the condyle to the articular eminence was taken as anterior condylar distance; the distance of the superior surface of the condyle from the deepest point of the glenoid fossa was taken as superior condylar distance; the distance of the posterior surface of the condyle from the glenoid fossa was taken as posterior condylar distance; the condylar angle was measured as an angle between the XY line and the FH' line passing through X, where X is the center of the condyle; and the distance of the medial surface of the condyle from the glenoid fossa was taken as medial distance. The data were then subjected to statistical analyses. Results For anterior distance, the highest distance was noted in Class II Division 1 (3.32 ± 0.4 mm), and the lowest was seen in Class I (2.43 ± 0.26 mm). In the posterior distance, Class I exhibited the highest mean distance of 2.05 ± 0.14 mm, while Class II Division 1 showed the lowest distance of 1.83 ± 0.18 mm. For superior distance, the highest mean value was noticed in Class I patients at 2.92 ± 0.22 mm, and the lowest value was seen in Class II Division 1 at 2.61 ± 0.35 mm (p=0.001). For the condylar angle, the highest mean value was observed in Class I (30.96 ± 1.91
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.