Methods of determining the relationship of the mandibular canal and third molars: a survey of Australian oral and maxillofacial surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical extraction of third molars is one of the most common oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures performed and may have a number of associated complications. One of these complications is inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) dysaesthesia or impairment of sensory perception (including paraesthesia and/or anaesthesia). Previous studies assume that most clinicians use various combinations of nine radiologic criteria on panoramic radiographs as indicators of the relationship and, therefore, predictors of the risk of postoperative dysaesthesia. Our study assessed both the current radiologic modalities and assessment criteria used by Australian oral and maxillofacial surgeons when determining the proximity of mandibular canal to third molars. METHODS: A survey of all surgeon members of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (ANZOMS) practising in Australia was undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 105 questionnaires sent to surgeons, 72 responses (68 per cent) were returned. All surgeons reported using the panoramic radiograph but only 25 per cent considered it sufficiently accurate in determining the relationship between the mandibular canal (MC) and the third molar root, while 61 per cent of surgeons use CT for this purpose but the average frequency of use was very low (five per cent). This study also revealed that the nine radiologic criteria on a panoramic radiograph are used to varying extents by Australian surgeons. Nearly all surgeons use 'change in MC direction' and 'MC narrowing' to determine and close relationship. Thirty-one per cent used superimposition of the MC and the root of the third molar alone and 24 per cent used appearance of contact of the root with the MC alone in the absence of any other radiologic criteria to indicate close or intimate relationship. CONCLUSION: Further research is required to determine the accuracy and observer agreement or reliability of using the nine panoramic characteristics, to determine this relationship and whether the presurgical determination of proximity and position (buccal or lingual) of the canal utilizing CT has any usefulness in determining the surgical protocol or affect on postoperative morbidity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".