ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Spatial Discrepancies in CBCT-Based Localization of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsTo quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in localizing impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM), using surgical guides as an image transfer modality.
methodsPatients requiring extraction of low-level horizontally impacted mandibular third molars underwent standardized CBCT. For 10 deeply impaction cases (Pell & Gregory Class C), personalized guides were designed and printed based on CBCT models to demarcate crown boundaries. Intraoperative mesiodistal and vertical discrepancies between guide-indicated and actual crown positions were measured. For an additional 60 cases without guides, only the horizontal discrepancy between the IMTM and the adjacent second molar was measured.
resultsActual IMTM positions extended mesially beyond the second molar distal surface (mean: 4.51 ± 1.52 mm), with significantly greater deviations in Class C than Class B (P < .05). Surgical guide-based measurements confirmed that actual crown positions were mesial and inferior to CBCT indications. Mean mesiodistal deviation was 4.94 ± 1.45 mm. Significant vertical discrepancies were also observed (mean superior: 5.21 ± 1.38 mm; mean inferior: 4.62 ± 0.95 mm).
conclusionIn the mandibular retromolar region, CBCT-based localization may deviate from actual anatomy by several millimeters in mesiodistal and vertical dimensions, with deeper impactions showing greater discrepancies. Heightened vigilance is warranted when planning surgeries based solely on CBCT for deeply impacted IMTMs or retromolar foreign bodies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: During mandibular retromolar region imaging, CBCT demonstrates mesiodistal and vertical deviations, with these error increasing as the target approaches the mandibular angle and inferior mandibular border.
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.