ArticleBMC oral health2026
Three-dimensional fracture mapping of the mandible: a retrospective CBCT-based analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of three-dimensional fracture mapping may offer significant benefits for clinicians, as well as for engineers involved in the design of advanced implants. The specific objectives of this study were to perform three-dimensional mapping of mandibular fractures based on the unique fracture morphologies of a defined cohort and to assess fracture distribution according to demographic variables, etiological factors, mandibular third molar impaction status, and fracture characteristics.
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included patients with mandibular fractures who were admitted to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at a tertiary healthcare center between January 2018 and February 2025. The primary outcome was the three-dimensional mapping of mandibular fracture distribution, visualized as fracture line density using color-coded heat maps. Covariates included demographic, etiological, mandibular third molar-related, and fracture-related variables. Fracture mapping was performed at the fracture level, whereas statistical analyses evaluating the association between impacted third molars and fracture location were conducted at the patient level.
resultsOne hundred fifty eight patients with mandibular fractures were analyzed, including 103 males (65.2%) and 55 females (34.8%) patients. The mean age of the patients was 36.8 ± 13.7 years. A total of 239 fractures were identified, and 267 fracture lines were delineated. In three-dimensional mapping, mandibular fractures most frequently clustered in the retromolar area, condylar neck, canine socket, and mental foramen regions. Mandibular fractures were most frequently observed in young male patients. The angle/ramus region was the most commonly fractured anatomical site, and assault was the predominant etiological factor. Impacted mandibular third molars were associated with a higher frequency of angle/ramus fractures, whereas condylar process fractures were more common in patients without impacted third molars. (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.08-3.85, p = .027; and OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.20-0.80, p = .015, respectively).
conclusionsThree-dimensional fracture mapping revealed clustering of mandibular fractures in the retromolar area, condylar neck, canine socket, and mental foramen regions, indicating areas of higher observed fracture-line density in this cohort.
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.