Mandibular Incisive Canal: Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Panoramic radiography is often used to analyze the anatomical structure of the teeth, jaws, and temporomandibular joints. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging allows multiple axial slices of the image to be obtained through these anatomical structures. The aim of this study was to assess CBCT compared with panoramic radiography to verify the presence, location, and dimensions of the mandibular incisive canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT scan images and panoramic radiographs of 89 subjects were compared for the presence of the mandibular incisive canal, its location, size, and anterior-posterior length. The distance between the incisive canal and the buccal and lingual plate of the alveolar bone, and the distance from the canal to the inferior border of the mandible and the tooth apex were also measured. A paired t-test was used to calculate any significant difference between the two imaging techniques. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of the CBCT scans showed the presence of the incisive canal, as did 11% of the panoramic radiographs. The range of the incisive canal diameter, as seen in the CBCT scans, was from 0.4 × 0.4 mm to 4.6 × 3.2 mm. The mean length of the canal was 7 ± 3.8 mm. The distance from the inferior border of the mandible to the canal was 10.2 ± 2.4 mm, and the mean distance to the buccal plate was 2.4 mm. The apex-canal distance (in dentate subjects) was 5.3 mm. CONCLUSION: The presence, location, and dimensions of the mandibular incisive canal are better determined by CBCT imaging than by panoramic radiography.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it