The Midline Mandibular Lingual Canal: Importance in Implant Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to determine if midline mandibular dental implants pose a risk for the midline lingual canal (MLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone beam computed tomography was used to scan 122 mandibles (31 black males; 28 black females; 32 white males and 31 white females). Midsagittal sections in the reconstructed images were made. A measurement of 6 mm across bucco-lingually was delineated as the minimum dimensions for implant placement. In dentate cases with a bucco-lingual distance in excess of 6 mm, the measurement was across the apex of the socket to determine the bone dimension available below the socket for implant placement. From these markers a vertical line was dropped to the MLC to measure the available bone. RESULTS: The MLC was a consistent finding. A statistical significant difference in bone availability among the sexes and dentition pattern was found, indicating that midline implants in edentulous females posed a risk of injury to the vessels of the MLC. CONCLUSION: Implants in the position of lower central incisors are regarded as a safe procedure. Clinicians should however take note of the position of the midline mandibular lingual canal and approach this area with caution, especially if the alveolar ridge is to be reduced before implant placement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".