ArticleScientific reports2025
Anatomical changes in alveolar bone structure following the extraction of the mandibular second molar using CBCT measurements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feature-Level Fusion-Based CNN-Transformer-KAN Hybrid Approach for Dental Implant Diameter and Length Detection.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical and Histological Outcomes of Autologous Dentin Matrix in Post-Extraction Alveolar Healing: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Submandibular fossa depth in relation to the mandibular canal and alveolar crest: a retrospective cross-sectional CBCT study analyzing side-specific and sex-based variations.Frontiers in oral health · 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
Abstract
This study seeks to investigate the changes in the anatomical structure of the alveolar bone after the extraction of the mandibular second molar at 3, 6, and 12 months using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This study analyzed CBCT images from 87 cases following the extraction of mandibular second molars. The anatomical structures of the alveolar bone were measured immediately after extraction, as well as at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-operation. The changes in the anatomical structures of the alveolar bone corresponding to different types of alveolar bone after the extraction of mandibular second molars were also assessed. The inverted fossa type of alveolar bone was the most common, accounting for 66.6%, followed by the parallel type at 11.5% and the confluent type at 21.9%. The available buccal bone width decreased in the order of inverted fossa type, confluent type, and parallel type. The lingual mandibular fossa of the inverted fossa type was classified into three categories: Type I (48.3%), Type II (41.4%), and Type III (10.3%). Within 12 months after the extraction of the mandibular second molar, the width of the inverted fossa type and the distance between the crest and the canal had the least absorption. The lingual inclination of the alveolar bone increased. In Type I, L2, L3, and L4 were all greater than 2 mm. In Type II, L2 was less than 2 mm, while L3 and L4 were greater than 2 mm. In Type III, L2 and L3 were less than 2 mm, and L4 was greater than 2 mm. Within 12 months after the extraction of the mandibular second molar, both the height and horizontal width of the alveolar bone decreased, and the degree of decrease is correlated with the type of alveolar bone. The deeper the lingual depression, the higher the risk of mandibular nerve injury and lingual perforation. The increase in lingual inclination of the alveolar bone after extraction is a contributing factor to the risk of lingual perforation.
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.