ArticleInternational dental journal2026
CBCT Assessment of Palatal Safe Zones in Adults with Various Skeletal Patterns.
Article in International dental journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsTo investigate the differences in palatal bone thickness among adult patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), and to analyse the safe regions for palatal anchor screw implantation in these patients.
methodsThis is a retrospective cross-sectional study. We retrospectively selected preoperative CBCT data from 90 adult patients (age: 26.5 ± 5.8 years) with Angle Class malocclusion treated between 2023 and 2025, divided into skeletal Class I, II, and III groups (30 cases each, 1:1 male-to-female ratio). Bone thickness at 27 points on the left palatal midline was measured using Dolphin software, with 1-way ANOVA and LSD for analysis (α = 0.05).
resultsFor all skeletal classes, midpalatal bone thickness increased anterior-to-posterior (Class I: η² = 0.42; Class II: η² = 0.40; Class III: η² = 0.35, all P < .05), while lateral/paramedian regions showed the opposite (η² = 0.68-0.82, P<.05). Safe zones (≥6mm) for Class I/II included midpalatal middle/posterior, lateral, and paramedian anterior regions; Class III only had midpalatal posterior (7.59 ± 1.36mm).
conclusionPalatal safe zones vary by sagittal skeletal pattern, providing critical references for anchor screw placement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings provide evidence-based safe zone maps to guide palatal anchor screw placement, so as to mitigate complications during orthodontic treatment. They also highlight the need to integrate AI-guided planning tools for enhanced accuracy, to inform good clinical practice.
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.