ArticleOral radiology2026
Radiographic study of osteoma: experiences from two dental schools.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical, radiographic and histopathological analysis of bone-forming tumors of the oral and maxillofacial region: A 53-year retrospective study.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOsteoma is a rare, benign bone-forming tumor. Clinicians may be unfamiliar with this lesion. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic features of osteomas to aid accurate diagnosis.
methodsOsteomas diagnosed in the oral and maxillofacial region at two dental schools between January 2012 and October 2023 were analyzed. Clinical, radiographic features, and histopathologic variants were evaluated.
resultsTwelve patients (8 females, 4 males) with a total of 13 osteomas were identified. Four were central (1 mandibular, 2 maxillary, 1 glenoid fossa) and 9 were periosteal (7 mandibular, 1 maxillary, 1 maxillary sinus floor). Mandibular lesions included 3 in the posterior region, 1 anterior involving the genial tubercle and body, 2 at the angle, 1 at the ramus, and 1 at the condyle. Two maxillary lesions were in the posterior region, and 1 extended from the canine to the molar region with impacted teeth. Central osteomas typically appeared as irregular, dense radiopaque masses with blending borders, whereas periosteal osteomas presented as round/oval or irregular radiopaque masses with well-defined borders. Central osteoma may be difficult to distinguish from fibro-osseous lesions, whereas the diagnosis of periosteal osteoma is often straightforward. Osteomas in the maxilla associated with impacted teeth, the glenoid fossa, and the genial tubercle each represent the fourth reported cases in the literature.
conclusionsOsteomas in the oral and maxillofacial region are rare and may present in uncommon locations. These findings contribute to a broader understanding of osteomas and may assist healthcare professionals in making accurate diagnoses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41028405What 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.