ArticleBMC oral health2025
Measurements of the anatomical structures of the mandibular buccal shelf for the safe insertion of mini-implants: a cone-beam computed tomography retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to obtain measurements of the anatomical structures of the mandibular buccal shelf (MBS) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the safe insertion of orthodontic mini-implants.
methodsThe sample consisted of the CBCT records of 100 subjects. The scans were imported into a reconstruction program. Measurements were taken in the coronal plane for three different roots: the mandibular first molar distal root (6D), second molar mesial root (7 M), and second molar distal root (7D). The inferior alveolar nerve canal (IANC) was used as a reference to determine the safe insertion depth. The roots of the mandibular molars were used as a reference to determine the maximum safe insertion angle. Analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and Kruskal-Wallis H test with post hoc analysis were used for data analysis.
resultsFor the 6Ds, the average bone depth was 20.33 ± 3.6 mm, the average depth above the IANC plane was 9.55 ± 2.97 mm, and the average maximum safe insertion angle was 47.47 ± 18.94°. For the 7Ms, the average bone depth was 22.06 ± 2.85 mm, the average depth above the IANC plane was 10.71 ± 2.67 mm, and the average maximum safe insertion angle was 43.14 ± 15.26°. For the 7Ds, the average bone depth was 23.75 ± 2.86 mm, the average depth above the IANC plane was 12.12 ± 2.61 mm, and the average maximum safe insertion angle was 28.39 ± 10.96°. From anterior to posterior, the buccal bone depth and depth above the IANC gradually increased (P < 0.01), there was no significant difference in the maximum safe insertion angle between the 6Ds and 7Ms (P = 1.000), but the significant difference was observed between 6Ds and 7Ds, 7Ms and 7Ds (P < 0.000).
conclusionsThe optimal implantation site for mini-implant in the MBS is at the buccal site corresponding to the second molar. A maximum insertion length of ≤ 12 mm and a maximum insertion angle which respects the long axial of the tooth root of ≤ 28° are recommended for the safe insertion of mini-implants in the MBS.
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.