ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2024
Morphology and thickness of the buccal bone wall of the maxillary central incisors in population: a CBCT study.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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 novel classification of periodontal phenotype integrating hard and soft tissue parameters using data-driven clustering.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Biomaterial strategies for precision regeneration of the tooth extraction socket: integrating site phenotype, pathological microenvironment, and healing sequence.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to measure and analyze the anatomical morphology and thickness of the buccal bone wall (BBW) of the maxillary central incisors, providing a theoretical basis for immediate implant surgery. A total of 372 maxillary central incisors were collected and classified into B and P types based on the root position and the degree of coverage of the BBW. The cases were divided into male and female groups, with 180 males and 192 females. The thickness of the BBW was measured at three measurement locations: 4 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), the mid-root, and the root apex. The number and proportion of various types of BBW are as follows: B1 (54, 14.52%), B2 (72, 19.35%), B3 (61, 16.40%), P1 (76, 20.43%), P2 (66, 17.74%), and P3 (43, 11.56%). In the B type group, the thickest BBW at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and the mid-root was observed in B3 (0.89 mm ± 0.09 mm, 0.56 mm ± 0.07 mm). The thickest BBW at the root apex was observed in B2 (0.46 mm ± 0.05 mm). In the P-type group, the thickest BBW at all three measurement locations was observed in P3 (1.10 mm ± 0.08 mm, 1.04 mm ± 0.11 mm, 3.59 mm ± 0.12 mm). The BBW of the maxillary central incisors in males was thicker than that in females. The conclusion drawn was that most BBW of the maxillary central incisors are thin, with a portion of the maxillary central incisors having only a thin BBW coverage at 4 mm apical to the CEJ and no significant bone wall coverage elsewhere. This Type of maxillary central incisor presents a higher risk of buccal soft and hard tissue recession and even bone fenestration after implant surgery. It is, therefore, crucial to assess the three-dimensional position of the root and measure the thickness of the BBW using Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
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.