Supramandibular Canal Portion Superior to the Fossa of the Submaxillary Gland: A Tomographic Evaluation of the Cross‐Sectional Dimension in the Molar Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Within the fossa of the submaxillary gland (FSG), there is a portion superior to the mandibular canal (SMCP) that can affect implant placement. Our study evaluated this specific portion's prevalence and its average dimensional difference between the first and the second molar regions in a dental implant population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 112 patients' mandibular cone beam computerized tomography scans, the SMCPs of the FSG's horizontal and vertical dimensions in the first and second molar positions on both sides were digitally measured. RESULTS: The SMCP of the FSG is larger in the second molar region than in the first molar region in >90% of cases. Average differences were 2.3 mm horizontally and 2.7 mm vertically. Gender difference and intraindividual's left/right variation were both clinically less significant in magnitude than the difference between the molar regions. Taking the 2-mm safety margin above the mandibular canal into consideration, the SMCP of the FSG remained high in prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The SMCP of the FSG may complicate implant placement more in the second molar region than in the first. Implant planning in the posterior mandibular molar regions should include a SMCP of the FSG evaluation using computer tomography especially in the second molar region.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".