Preoperative Diagnostic for Palatal Implants: Is CT or CBCT Necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate (a) the diagnostic value of lateral radiographs and (b) whether computed tomography (CT) or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is necessary in preoperative diagnostics for orthodontic anchorage implants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed all patients who had presented for insertion of a palatal implant between January 2003 and December 2007 at the University Hospital Mainz. On the basis of lateral radiographs, the palatal bone was assessed as follows: (a) sufficient (bone height > 4 mm in the implant axis), (b) ambiguous, or (c) insufficient (bone height < 4 mm in the implant axis). In group A the surgical insertion procedure was performed without further radiological investigation. Group C required other types of anchorage. In cases of an ambiguous bone situation (group B), further diagnostic procedures (CT/CBCT) were performed. RESULTS: During the observation period, 105 patients were screened. Fourteen patients opted for alternative treatment leaving 91 patients for final evaluation. In 89 patients (97.8%), the lateral radiographs showed sufficient bone in the vertical dimension. In all of these cases, the availability of sufficient bone was confirmed intraoperatively. Further investigations were performed in two patients (2.2%) of group B (one CT, one CBCT). Finally, one patient had insufficient bone whereas the second had sufficient bone. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 98% of the patients included in this study had sufficient bone for palatal implant insertion. Lateral radiographs permit correct and reliable evaluation of the quantity of bone in preoperative diagnosis of palatal implants. Additional imaging (CT or CBCT) is only required in rare cases of borderline dimensions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".