ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Derived Alveolar Anatomy for Immediate Implant Planning: Thickness, Concavity, and Angulation Patterns: A Comprehensive Evaluation.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the buccal and palatal bone thickness, sagittal angulation, and the buccal bone concavity angle of maxillary anterior teeth using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included patients ≥18 years with periodontally healthy maxillary anterior teeth (cementoenamel junction (CEJ)-bone crest (BC) ≤3 mm). Scans with artifacts, restorations, implants or pathological bone loss were excluded. Buccal and palatal bone thicknesses were measured at coronal, midroot, and apical levels, along with CEJ-BC distance, sagittal angulation, and buccal bone concavity angle. Data were analyzed using descriptive and parametric statistics, with Pearson correlation analysis. Results: A total of 112 CBCT scans (502 maxillary anterior teeth) were analyzed from 33 men and 79 women (mean age 31.10 years). Of 672 teeth examined, 170 were excluded mainly due to crestal/periapical bone loss, restorations, or imaging artifacts. Mean facial bone thickness was 1.05 ± 0.31 mm, while palatal bone thickness was 4.07 ± 3.07 mm. Mean CEJ-BC distance ranged from 1.65 ± 0.56 to 1.72 ± 0.56 mm. Mean sagittal angulation was 8.70° ± 5.09° for central incisors, 7.86° ± 5.15° for lateral incisors, and 12.23° ± 4.3° for canines. Buccal concavity angles averaged 154° ± 14.6°, 152° ± 9.33°, and 158° ± 7.7° for central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, respectively. Significant correlations were observed between sagittal angulation and both buccal and palatal bone thicknesses, as well as between concavity angle and selected bone thickness measurements. Sensitivity analysis accounting for within-patient clustering confirmed the robustness of the sagittal angulation correlations, whereas most correlations involving the concavity angle did not remain significant after clustering adjustment. Conclusion: The facial bone plate of the anterior maxilla is thin (<1.5 mm), with maxillary anterior teeth frequently positioned buccally within a curved labial plate. As an observational anatomical study, these findings would help in highlighting the importance of individualized CBCT-based evaluation in treatment planning, particularly when considering augmentation needs and implant positioning in the esthetic zone.
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.