ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
The prevalence of mandibular lingual concavity among the Saudi population of Eastern Province: A CBCT evaluation.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anatomic variations can make placing implants in the mandible more complex. Exploring the variation in the presence of ridges and lingual concavity among different races and ethnicities is of therapeutic significance. The current study evaluates the prevalence and size of mandibular lingual concavity, which can cause surgical complications while inserting dental implants in the mandibular first molar area. Methods: Two hundred and fifty-six cross-section images of the edentulous first molar region were examined. Within this geographical area, the structure of the lower jaw was categorized into three distinct types: C-configuration (convex), P-configuration (parallel), and U-configuration (with an undercut). The study was conducted at IAU College of Dentistry, Dammam. Data was gathered on the depth of the lingual concavity, the angle of the concavity, and other relevant factors. The data were analyzed with SPSS 20. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Of 256 subjects included in the study, 144 were males (M), and 112 were females (F). Various variables measured complimenting the lingual concavity showed no difference between the genders, except for the VCB "The vertical distance from the alveolar crest to line A" (p-value = 0.005). The division of ridges morphology as a whole was as follows: Convex (C), 70 (27.34 %), Parallel (P) 51 (19.92 %), and Undercut (U) type, 135 (52.73 %). The angle of concavity was 69.28 ± 14.41 % (M) and 67.09 ± 13.04 %. (F). Angle depth was 2.40 ± 1.72 % (M) and 2.36 ± 1.46 % (F); together, 2.38 ± 1.6 %. Conclusion: It was concluded that U-type ridges were predominant (52.73%) with more chances of occurrence of lingual concavity. There were no differences between the genders except in one parameter. (VCB) Further studies are required to explore lingual concavity in more detail.
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.