Anatomical Bases for the Insertion of Zygomatic Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to obtain anatomical information for installing four zygomatic implants, by measurements of maxillae and zygomata. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Linear and angular measurements were obtained from the maxillae and zygomata of 40 dry skulls. RESULTS: Based on mean and standard deviation values, the installation angle of the additional implant in the four zygoma technique was between 25 degrees and 47 degrees , and that of the conventional zygomatic implant was between 39 degrees and 62 degrees . The distance between the alveolar crest in the canine region and the lateral margin of the orbital socket was 53.42 mm, and between the alveolar crest in the premolar region and the area closest to the lateral margin of the orbital socket was 42.47 mm. CONCLUSIONS: When the angle of installation of the additional implant is less than 25 degrees and that of the conventional zygomatic implant is less than 39 degrees , perforation of the maxilla, zygoma, or the infratemporal fossa must be avoided. When the angle of installation of an additional implant is greater than 47 degrees and that of the conventional zygomatic implant is greater than 62 degrees , perforation of the orbital floor must be avoided. The length of an additional implant was greater than the length of a conventional zygomatic implant, and should be measured prior to drilling, because the greatest value found for this distance was 61.94 mm, while the maximum length of the zygomatic implants currently available on the market is 52.5 mm.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".