Panoramic Images versus Three‐Dimensional Planning Software for Oral Implant Planning in Atrophied Posterior Maxillary: A Clinical Radiological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this radiographic study were to determine to what degree the available residual bone area for implant placement was underestimated on panoramic radiographs (by comparison with multislice computed tomography CT/cone beam CT images combined with planning software) and to what degree the rate of severely resorbed posterior maxillae requiring sinus lift was overestimated on panoramic radiographs (by comparison with planning software in combination with strategic implant placement). MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period, every patient who presented for the placement of implants in the posterior maxilla was examined by three practitioners to discuss the treatment plan. When two to three practitioners indicated a sinus lift with creation of a lateral window, a CT scan was performed and examined using dedicated three-dimensional software by a clinician familiar with the Computer Assisted Design/ Computer Assisted Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) implant placement protocol. For each tooth to be replaced, the presence of anatomical features such as anterior or posterior wall, palatal curvature, and septa were examined in view of the placement of an 8-mm or longer implant. RESULTS: One hundred one patients were studied in this case series for the treatment of 135 edentulous spans accounting for 301 missing teeth. After examination of the CT data on the three-dimensional software, 202 teeth (67.1%) could be replaced using a CAD/CAM procedure; 60.7% of the edentulous spans could be completely repaired by a crown or bridge supported by implants. In addition, 67.3% of edentulism with no teeth posterior to the span could be completely repaired using a fixed prosthesis supported by implants. CONCLUSION: This radiological study demonstrates that the use of a panoramic exam for oral implant planning in severely resorbed maxillae overestimates the need for a sinus augmentation procedure when compared with the use of both three-dimensional planning software and strategic implant placement on small remaining bone volume.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".