ReviewAnatomical science international2026
The mylohyoid bridge: a meta-analysis of its prevalence and clinical significance.
Review in Anatomical science international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mylohyoid bridge (MHB) is an ossified roof over part or all of the mylohyoid groove that may alter the osseous corridor of the mylohyoid neurovascular bundle. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated its prevalence, morphological patterns, and craniomaxillofacial relevance. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science through May 2026, supplemented by reference-list and targeted journal searches. Seventeen studies were included. In accordance with evidence-based anatomy recommendations, we analyzed mandible-level and side-level prevalence as separate reporting-unit subgroups using random-effects models with inverse-variance weighting, Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation, and DerSimonian-Laird estimation. Pooled prevalence was 14.11% per mandible (95% CI 8.75-20.45%; I²=90%) and 10.20% per side (95% CI 7.07-13.80%; I²=93.1%). No significant subgroup differences were detected between left and right sides or between sexes; the exploratory descriptive evaluations indicated a higher pooled prevalence for unilateral than bilateral presentation (8.55% vs. 3.77%). The evidence base was entirely osteological, and marked heterogeneity limits extrapolation of a single universal prevalence. The MHB is not rare and has proposed anesthetic and surgical relevance, although direct outcome-based clinical evidence remains limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42832164What 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.