ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Dual attachment of the buccinator muscle at the pterygoid hamulus: implications for pterygoid implant surgery.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePterygoid implants are a viable alternative to sinus-lifting procedures; however, their placement may risk damaging adjacent soft tissues. This study aimed to clarify the morphology of the buccinator muscle (Bu), particularly its attachment to the pterygoid hamulus, and to assess the risk of injury during implant surgery.
methodsCadaveric dissection, histological analysis, and micro-computed tomography were performed. Bone morphometry was used to evaluate the maxillary tuberosity. Histological sections were analyzed to measure the distance between the Bu and the maxillary tuberosity, as well as to examine its attachment to the pterygoid hamulus.
resultsSubstantial individual variation was observed in the shape and bone density of the maxillary tuberosity, with some specimens exhibiting low bone volume fraction (BV/TV). The Bu was located immediately posterior to the tuberosity at the root of the pterygoid hamulus (mean: 0.61 mm), but more distant at the tip (mean: 2.37 mm). The muscle exhibited a dual mode of attachment: tendinous at the root and periosteal at the tip. Implant perforation near the root may therefore pose a higher risk of muscle injury.
conclusionsThis study revealed a dual attachment of the buccinator muscle to the pterygoid hamulus and emphasized its close proximity to the maxillary tuberosity. Additionally, low BV/TV values in some specimens highlight the anatomical variability of this region. Understanding individual differences in bone structure and the precise location of soft tissue attachments is essential for safer and more predictable pterygoid implant placement.
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.