MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Position of the teeth on the edentulous atrophic maxilla

2001· article· en· W2108227876 on OpenAlexaff
Lippo Lassila, Esa Klemetti, Veijo Lassila

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Rehabilitation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolarDentistryDental alveolusMedicinePremolarOrthodonticsSagittal planeMaxillaMandibular first molarMaxillary central incisorIncisorAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For prosthetic treatment of strongly atrophic alveolar wall, some biometric methods have been developed. The measurements taken from plaster cast models of 230 edentulous, average 29.9 years, and 125 dentulous post-menopausal women were correlated. In the edentulous maxilla the sagittal position of canine teeth can be determined by the oral edge of incisive papilla. The transverse position of canine teeth was on the outer edge of the alveolar wall because of the extensive loss of buccal alveolar bone. On the incisor area the facial surfaces of the central incisors were determined by the oral edge of incisive papilla and the distance was about twice the length of the papilla. The sagittal position of the first premolars was one-third and the first molars two-thirds the length of the palate from the plane of the labial edge of incisive papilla. The transverse position of the premolars and molars was determined by the scar-line, which is a cord-like elevation or track on the alveolar mucosa after extractions of the teeth. According to the comparative method, the position of the scar-line differed from the lingual gingival margin line and was situated about half breadth of the tooth in a buccal direction from it. The transverse position of premolar and molar in the edentulous maxilla is about the middle of the scar-line in a facio-buccal direction. In the setting of the artificial teeth, the facial surfaces of these teeth should be on average 5.0-6.0 mm sideways from the scar-line, whilst the total bilateral breadth of the alveolar wall in the sulcus area was on average 1.0-2.0 mm larger.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral RehabilitationSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207