Observational studyPloS one2026
Prevalence and anatomical distribution of incidental and actionable findings on CBCT scans for implant planning.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the prevalence and anatomical distribution of incidental (IF) and actionable findings (AF) on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained for dental implant planning, and to evaluate their associations with patient demographics and imaging parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational study included all consecutive CBCT scans obtained for implant planning (n = 368). A structured, zone-based evaluation protocol was applied, systematically assessing four anatomical regions: (1) cranium and paranasal sinuses, (2) zygomaticomaxillary/orbital complex including the temporomandibular joint, (3) maxillomandibular region, and (4) structures inferior to the mandible. IF were defined as findings unrelated to the implant planning site, and AF were classified based on the oral and maxillofacial radiologist recommendations for further evaluation, referral, or management rather than confirmed clinical outcomes. Associations between IF, AF, CBCT field of view (FOV), age, and sex were analyzed using univariate and multivariable methods.
resultsIF were observed in 257 patients (69.8%) and AF in 199 (54.1%). IF prevalence increased from 50% in patients ≤40 years to 78.8% in those >70 years, and was higher in males than females (76.2% vs. 64.5%; p = 0.01). In univariate analyses, AF were not significantly associated with sex (p = .97) or age (p = .25). However, patients >70 years had higher odds of AF in multivariable analysis, although the overall model was not statistically significant. Zone 2 findings were more common in females than males (21.5% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001). IF were most common in medium FOV scans (72.2%), whereas AF did not vary by FOV (p = .94). The most prevalent findings involved the maxillary sinus (35.1%), cervical spine (27.4%), tonsils (15.8%), TMJ (11.7%), and vasculature (8.4%).
conclusionsIF and findings classified as AF based on OMR recommendations were highly prevalent in CBCT scans obtained for implant planning. Approximately half of the scans presented AF (54%). These findings were distributed across multiple anatomical zones and were associated with age and sex, while AF showed no association with FOV.
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.