MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy of Panoramic Cross‐Sectional Tomography, Its Ability to Identify the Inferior Alveolar Canal, and Its Impact on Estimation of Appropriate Implant Dimensions in the Mandibular Posterior Region

2009· article· en· W1494799408 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anshul Mehra, Keerthilatha M. Pai

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandibular canalMagnificationMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Alveolar crestImplantOrthodonticsMedicineDentistryDental alveolusMolarBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the dimensional accuracy of panoramic cross-sectional tomography, its impact on implant size estimation and its ability in identifying the inferior alveolar canal in the mandibular posterior region. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight partially edentulous mandibles with 18 edentulous sites were obtained. Orthopantomograms and tomograms were made and the mandible's outline and the position of mandibular canals on tomograms were traced on a clear acetate paper. Horizontal and vertical magnification factors were calculated. The mandibular height, distance between mandibular canal and alveolar crest, maximum bucco-lingual width, distance between buccal cortex and mandibular canal, and cortical thickness at the inferior border of the mandible were measured. Potential implant sites were identified and implant sizes were estimated. Location and visibility of mandibular canals were also evaluated. The mandibles were sectioned at each site and all the above mentioned parameters were assessed which served as gold standard. RESULTS: Mean horizontal and vertical magnification factors were 1.47 ± 0.048 and 1.53 ± 0.038. Total height and maximum bucco-lingual width were underestimated by 1.88% and 1.59%. Crest to canal distance, cortical thickness at the inferior border of the mandible and buccal cortex to mandibular canal were overestimated by 0.59%, 5.16%, and 3.64%. Implant sizes were estimated for 11 sites and changes were recorded at 2 sites between record 1 and record 2. However, there was no disagreement between record 2 and record 3. Of the canals, 61.11% were located lingually and the visibility of mandibular canals was poor in 44.44% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The tomograms were found to be accurate for the measurements in both horizontal and vertical planes and reliable for implant size estimation, taking into consideration proper magnification factors. They were also found to be useful in assessing the location of mandibular canal but were not very effective in discerning it.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207