Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Morphological and cortical bone assessment of the edentulous posterior mandible using CBCT Implications for implant planning and mandibular cortical index evaluation.
Observational study 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the relationship between posterior mandibular ridge morphology, cortical bone characteristics, and the Mandibular Cortical Index (MCI), and to assess their potential impact on the complexity of dental implant placement. Understanding these parameters is essential to optimize implant planning, minimize surgical complications, and improve clinical outcomes, particularly in regions where anatomical variations pose increased risks.
methodsIn this retrospective observational study, 100 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of edentulous mandibles were analyzed in Turkish population. Each mandible was evaluated through 10 sagittal cross-Sect. (5 from each side), resulting in 1000 sections. The sample consisted of equal numbers of male and female patients aged between 32 and 79 years. Morphological parameters, including lingual concavity and convexity, bucco-lingual width, cortical bone thickness (buccal and lingual), alveolar crest height, and ridge morphology types, were evaluated in sagittal sections. Ridge shapes were categorized as saddle, kidney, pen shape, toucan beak, straight, hourglass, or basal. The MCI was classified as C1 (normal cortex), C2 (moderate erosion), or C3 (severe erosion) based on cortical integrity. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the relationships between MCI, ridge morphology, and bone parameters.
resultsA statistically significant relationship was observed between MCI groups and ridge morphology types (p < 0.001). The C3 group exhibited significantly thinner lingual cortical bone (0.81 ± 0.22 mm), lower alveolar crest heights, and increased bucco-lingual width compared to the C1 group (1.29 ± 0.26 mm, p < 0.001), along with lower alveolar crest heights and increased bucco-lingual width (p < 0.05). Basal-shaped ridges showed the widest bucco-lingual dimensions but the lowest alveolar crest heights, suggesting advanced vertical bone loss. Conversely, straight and pen-shaped ridges demonstrated greater lingual cortical thickness. Lingual concavity was more pronounced in cases with lower MCI.
conclusionCBCT-based evaluation of mandibular ridge morphology and cortical bone integrity, supported by appropriate statistical analyses (ANOVA, Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis), offers clinically valuable insights for implant planning. Incorporating these assessments helps identify patients at greater risk for complications, guides the need for augmentation procedures, and supports safer and more predictable implant placement. These findings underscore the clinical relevance of ridge morphology and MCI in preoperative risk assessment, helping clinicians tailor implant planning strategies to anatomical variations and minimize complications.
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.