Morphologic and Morphometric Description of the Temporomandibular Joint in the Domestic Dog Using Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporomandibular joint (TMJ) in the domestic dog is a synovial joint with 2 articular surfaces, the mandibular fossa of the squamous portion of the temporal bone and the articular head of the condylar process of the mandible. Although different diagnostic imaging techniques have been used to study the TMJ in dogs, morphologic and morphometric studies based on computed tomography (CT) are scarce. The purpose of the present study was to describe the morphologic and morphometric features of the TMJ in domestic dogs using CT. Width and depth of the mandibular fossa and 2 different angles between the mandibular fossa and the condylar process were measured in 96 TMJs of 48 dogs of different breeds (Labrador retriever, German shepherd, cocker spaniel, boxer, English bulldog, pug, shih tzu, and Cavalier King Charles spaniel). Temporomandibular joint conformation differed between breeds. Mid- and small-sized dogs had mandibular fossae that were more shallow, less developed retroarticular processes, and irregularly shaped condylar processes. The TMJs were more congruent in large dogs, presenting with deeper mandibular fossae, prominent retroarticular processes, and more uniform condylar processes. The measurements proposed in this study demonstrated 3 different morphologic conformations for the TMJ in the dogs of this study.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".