ArticleBioinformation2025
Mandibular buccal shelf morphology among Indian adults using CBCT across class I, class II and class III malocclusions.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mandibular buccal shelf (MBS) is recognized as a stable site for miniscrew insertion due to its dense cortical bone, although its morphology varies across malocclusion types. Therefore, it is of interest to compare buccal shelf width and cortical bone thickness among adults with Class I, Class II and Class III skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). A retrospective analysis of 80 CBCT scans was performed, with measurements taken at standardized apical levels and statistically compared using one-way ANOVA. Results showed that Class III subjects exhibited significantly greater buccal shelf width and cortical thickness than Class I and Class II groups, indicating more favorable bone morphology for orthodontic anchorage. These findings suggest that MBS characteristics are most advantageous in Class III patients, highlighting the importance of individualized CBCT-based assessment for miniscrew planning.
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.