Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42432579›Full record

Observational studyBMC oral health2026

Posterior mandibular edentulous ridge morphometry on CBCT: anatomical constraints relevant to surgical planning.

Alime Okkesim, Cagri Esen

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alime OkkesimDepartment of Oral and Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University, Nevsehir, Turkey. alimeokkesim@nevsehir.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0801-8662
Cagri EsenDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University, Nevsehir, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate preoperative assessment of posterior mandibular edentulous sites is essential for implant planning because ridge resorption, proximity to the mandibular canal, and lingual cortical morphology may limit implant placement. This retrospective cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based study aimed to compare residual bone height (RBH), ridge width, lingual concavity angle (LCA), and horizontal concavity offset (HCO) among posterior mandibular tooth regions and to evaluate implant feasibility and augmentation requirements using a standardized virtual planning model.

methodsThis single-center, retrospective, CBCT-based observational study included 45 individuals and 252 posterior mandibular edentulous sites. Sites were assigned to the first premolar (PM1), second premolar (PM2), first molar (M1), or second molar (M2) region primarily according to the presence of adjacent teeth. When adjacent teeth were absent, the mental foramen was used as the principal landmark, with the mandibular canal and local ridge morphology serving as supplementary anatomical references. Contralateral information, when available, was used only as an ancillary orientation aid and not as the primary determinant of site localization. The site was the unit of analysis, and patient-level clustering was accounted for by including patient ID as a random intercept in linear mixed-effects models. RBH, BW1, BW3, BW5, LCA, and HCO were measured using a standardized multiplanar workflow. Implant feasibility categories were generated using predefined vertical and horizontal thresholds and were interpreted as virtual radiologic planning categories rather than clinical outcome measures. An exploratory post-augmentation simulation was also performed to summarize feasible implant diameter and length distributions after assuming that the required augmentation had been achieved.

resultsThe study included 45 patients (26 female and 19 male; mean age, 58.1 years) and 252 posterior mandibular edentulous sites. Mean BW1 ranged from 4.58 mm in PM2 to 5.72 mm in M2, mean BW3 ranged from 6.43 mm in PM2 to 8.24 mm in M2, and mean BW5 ranged from 8.06 mm in PM2 to 10.22 mm in M2. Mean RBH was highest in PM1 (13.56 mm) and lowest in M2 (12.09 mm). A significant regional effect was observed for BW1 (p = 0.013), BW3 (p < 0.001), BW5 (p < 0.001), RBH (p < 0.001), LCA (p < 0.001), and HCO (p = 0.036). Standard implant placement was virtually feasible at 47.6% of sites (95% CI, 41.5%-53.8%), whereas horizontal augmentation was the most common insufficiency category (33.3%; 95% CI, 27.8%-39.4%). In the post-augmentation simulation, implants 3.5 mm in diameter and implants at least 12 mm in length were the most frequently feasible options; neither diameter nor length distribution differed significantly among regions. Age and sex were not significantly associated with BW1, BW3, BW5, or RBH (all p > 0.05).

conclusionsPosterior mandibular edentulous sites showed region-specific variation in ridge dimensions and lingual concavity-related parameters. Distal regions, particularly molar sites, had lower residual bone height despite greater ridge widths. The combined assessment of RBH, ridge width, LCA, and HCO may facilitate a more comprehensive radiologic evaluation during implant planning. However, because these findings are based on CBCT-derived morphometry and virtual planning, they should be validated in prospective studies that include clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Alveolar ProcessCone-Beam Computed TomographyJaw, Edentulous, PartiallyMandiblePatient Care PlanningAdultAgedDental Implantation, EndosseousFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAlveolar bone widthCone-beam computed tomographyDental implantsLingual concavityPosterior mandibleResidual bone height

Identifiers

PMID42432579
PMCPMC13637146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.