Buccal Alveolar Exostoses: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Evidence for Buttressing Bone Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Buttressing bone formation has been described as the development of thickened or exostotic buccal alveolar bone in response to heavy occlusal forces. Little supporting evidence for this model has been found in previous literature, however, and there is little seen on the prevalence or characteristics of buccal alveolar exostoses. METHODS: A sample of 416 selected teeth and investing bone in 52 modern skeletal specimens at the National Museum of Natural History were examined. Two measures of heavy occlusal function--periodontal ligament (PDL) width and occlusal attrition--were analyzed for their relationship to three parameters of buccal alveolar bone (exostoses, lipping, and overall thickness). RESULTS: Buccal alveolar bone enlargements were found in 25% of all teeth examined: 18% were expressed as marginal bony lippings and 7% as buccal exostoses. Exostoses were mainly seen around maxillary molars and bicuspids, especially in males, while lippings were seen in molars, bicuspids, and mandibular incisors, with even gender distribution. When findings were controlled for arch and tooth type, no significant correlations were found between wider PDL spaces or occlusal attrition and exostotic, lipped, or thicker alveolar bone. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate a lack of anatomic evidence for the theory of buttressing bone formation and suggest that other factors may be of greater importance in the etiology of buccal bone enlargements. Incidentally, no correlation was found between widened PDL spaces or severe occlusal attrition and the presence of cervical loss of tooth structure, which casts doubt on the currently popular concept of abfraction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".