A Comparative Study of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Mandibular Canals and Cross‐Sectional Areas in Diagnosis prior to Dental Implant Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is effective in the diagnosis of dental implants. However, it has the disadvantage of exposing patients to high doses of x-rays, and the mandibular canals cannot be detected by CT in some clinical cases. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the detectability of the anatomic morphology of the molar region in the lower jaw (where implantation is common) by CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to compare the data, and to determine the usefulness of MRI in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven female subjects (average age, 59 years) who had partially edentulous mandibles (total of 19 sites) were included in the study. CT and MRI were performed with the same subjects, and the degrees of identification of the mandibular canal in the first and second molar regions were compared. Dimensional accuracy in the second molar region was also compared. RESULTS: With CT, the canals of the first molar regions were not identified in 11 of 19 sites; however, MRI identified the canals in all 19 sites. Using the kappa index, we found that the inter- and intraobserver identification reliabilities (0.84 and 0.87, respectively) were excellent, especially for MRI. Dimensional positioning of the canal in the second molar region was almost the same with MRI as with CT. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is an alternative method in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatment in the mandibular 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".