ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Determination of optimal horizontal beam angulations for canal separation in mandibular molars using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective image-based analysis.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2026. 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
Objectives: : Two-dimensional intraoral radiographs often obscure canals due to superimposition, especially in mandibular molars with complex anatomy. This cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study identified the horizontal beam angles at which first and second molar canals overlap and derived clinically applicable angulations for enhanced canal separation. Methods: Eighty-five CBCT datasets from 100 patients met the inclusion criteria, yielding 318 mandibular molars (160 first, 158 second). Using ImageJ, absolute horizontal overlap angles (α) were measured to determine the corresponding theoretical separation angles defined as δ* = 90° - α. Separability was modeled across horizontal beam angulation increments from -45° to +45° in five steps, and Wilson's 95% confidence intervals were computed. Group comparisons used the Mann-Whitney U and independent t-tests (p ≤ 0.05). Results: Minimal mesial beam angulations for effective canal separability (δ* = 90° - α) ranged from approximately 7° to 15° for mesial roots and approximately 10° to 13° for distal roots. No significant mesial differences were observed between first and second molars (p > 0.30). Distal roots of second molars exhibited significantly higher angulations (p = 0.003 coronal, p < 0.001 apical). Mesial canals achieved ≥95% separability at approximately 25° and ≥99% at approximately 35°; distal canals required approximately 30° and approximately 40°. Conclusions: A mesial beam angulation of 30° to 35° provides probable canal differentiation in mandibular molars, separating mesial canals in ≥99% and distal canals in ≥95% of cases. This range refines previous recommendations and supports the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle.
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.