Clinical Assessment and Surgical Implications of Anatomic Challenges in the Anterior Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anterior mandible is generally considered a rather safe surgical area, involving few risks of damage to vital anatomic structures. Nevertheless, both neurosensory disturbances and hemorrhages have been reported after implant surgery in that particular area. PURPOSE: With the increasing demand for oral implant placement, the anatomy of the anterior mandible should receive more attention. This review will focus on the anatomic peculiarities of the anterior mandible and the related clinical implications. METHODS: The scientific evidence on the anatomic, histologic, physiologic, and clinical aspects of the neurovascularization of the anterior mandible will be reviewed. RESULTS: Surgical complications may be attributed to the existence of a mandibular incisive canal with a true neurovascular supply. Potential risks may also be related to the presence of the lingual foramen and anatomic variations, such as an anterior looping of the mental nerve. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative radiographic planning for oral implant placement in the anterior mandible should therefore not only consider all esthetic and functional demands but should also pay particular attention to the anatomic peculiarities of this region to avoid any neurovascular complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".