ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Retrospective CBCT-based anatomical assessment of mandibular first and second molars: a cross-sectional study with potential implications for immediate implant planning.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immediate implant placement in mandibular molar sockets can shorten treatment and reduce the number of surgical interventions, but the anatomy of the posterior mandible may limit implant positioning and increase surgical risk. This study evaluated six cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived anatomical parameters in mandibular first and second molars. This retrospective cross-sectional study included 25 CBCT scans from 25 adults, providing 100 molar sites (#36, #37, #46, and #47). Buccal bone thickness, crestal bone width, crestal bone height loss, vertical bone height, root apex-to-inferior alveolar canal (IAC) distance, and interradicular distance were measured. The data were analyzed using 2 × 2 repeated-measures analyses of variance with molar type and side as within-subject factors. Pairwise comparisons were Holm-adjusted. Inter-examiner reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Inter-examiner reliability was excellent for all parameters (ICC range, 0.907-0.988). Second molars had greater buccal bone thickness (mean difference, 0.352 mm; 95% CI, 0.186-0.518; p < 0.001) and crestal bone width (0.786 mm; 95% CI, 0.367-1.205; p = 0.001). First molars had greater vertical bone height (1.724 mm; 95% CI, 1.050-2.398; p < 0.001), root apex-to-IAC distance (0.802 mm; 95% CI, 0.261-1.343; p = 0.005), and interradicular distance (0.924 mm; 95% CI, 0.655-1.193; p < 0.001). Crestal bone height loss did not differ significantly by molar type. Mandibular first and second molars demonstrated distinct CBCT-derived anatomical patterns in this selected dentate sample. These measurements may be informative for preoperative anatomical assessment. Their value for selecting implant dimensions or osteotomy positions, or predicting clinical outcomes, was not evaluated.
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.