ArticleScientific reports2026
CBCT-based submandibular fossa depth classification and panoramic fractal dimension analysis in the posterior mandible.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep concavities of the submandibular fossa (SF) in the posterior mandible substantially increase the risk of lingual cortical plate perforation during implant placement. Although cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) enables accurate three-dimensional assessment of SF morphology, panoramic radiography remains the most commonly used initial imaging modality. We investigated whether trabecular bone texture on panoramic radiographs, quantified using fractal dimension (FD), is associated with CBCT-measured SF depth. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 133 patients with CBCT and panoramic radiographs obtained within 3 months were included. SF depth was classified as Type I (≤ 2 mm), Type II (2-3 mm), or Type III (> 3 mm). On the matching panoramic level, a 20 × 20-pixel cancellous region of interest was analyzed in ImageJ using box-counting FD. Group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction; correlations were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (p < 0.05). A total of 229 hemimandible measurements were evaluated. Mean age was 41.96 ± 15.59 years; 57.1% were female. Mean SF depth was 1.845 ± 0.750 mm and mean FD was 1.0964 ± 0.0667. Median FD was 1.0747, 1.1324, and 1.1340 in Types I, II, and III, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis p = 4.45 × 10⁻⁵). FD was significantly higher in Types II and III versus Type I (p = 0.000514 and p = 0.00633), with no difference between Types II and III (p = 1.00). SF depth positively correlated with FD (Spearman rho = 0.4138, p = 6.95 × 10⁻¹¹). Panoramic FD values reflected CBCT-defined SF depth categories, with deeper concavities showing consistently higher trabecular texture complexity. These results suggest that SF anatomical variation is a previously unrecognized source of regional FD heterogeneity in the posterior mandible and should be considered when interpreting panoramic FD in this region. FD is not proposed as a substitute for CBCT, but as a complementary quantitative descriptor with implications for both surgical risk awareness and radiographic research methodology.
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.