ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2025
3D Assessment of the Relationship of the Mandibular Buccal Shelf with the Mandibular Canal: A CBCT Retrospective Study.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the micro-implant safest insertion site on the mandibular buccal shelf (MBS) without compromising the integrity of the mandibular canal (MC). Methods: This retrospective investigation included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of 96 Portuguese patients (58 females and 38 males, average age of 25.5±10.2 years). Measurements were taken in four bilateral MBS sites buccal to the mandibular second molar; tangent to the distal surface (7D), distobuccal cusp tip (7CD), buccal groove (7S) and mesiobuccal cusp tip (7CM). The transversal MBS midpoint was also determined, and the maximum angulation from the transversal MBS midpoint was extracted relative to the true vertical plane. Subsequently, the distance from the MBS midpoint to the MC was calculated at this angulation. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed at p<0.05. Results: Significant correlations were observed among several variables and age, sex and bilateral asymmetry (p<0.05). The MBS transversal width and the distance from the MBS midpoint to the MC progressively increased in the posterior direction while the angulation decreased. Conclusion: The most appropriate micro-implant insertion location compared to the other MBS investigated sites, in the absence of impacted third molars, is adjacent to the distal surface of the second molar. This finding is consistent across all age groups, sexes, and insertion sides. However, due to the demonstrated variability, taking a CBCT scan prior to mini-implant insertion might be considered to minimize the risk of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve.
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.