MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801936038 · doi:10.1111/cid.12606

New classification of maxillary sinus contours and its relation to sinus floor elevation surgery

2018· article· en· W2801936038 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinus (botany)Maxillary sinusPremolarMedicineMolarAnatomySinus liftDentistryOrthodonticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is complicated to select an appropriate sinus floor elevation and the procedure for sinus floor elevation lacks of consensus. Sinus contour plays an important role in choosing a surgery approach. But there are still no published articles revealing the influence of sinus contours to sinus floor elevation surgery. PURPOSE: We propose a new classification depending on sinus contours from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), analyze clinical characters of different types, and investigate the relationship between sinus contours and sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We divide sinus into five categories: narrow tapered, tapering, ovoid, square, and irregular. For the first four types, subtypes are classified into three categories: without recess, with buccal-sinus-recess (BSR), and with palate-nasal-recess (PNR). For irregular type, subtypes are classified into three categories: tooth protruding into sinus floor, irregular floor, and septa/exostosis on sinus floor. Then the distribution features of sinuses of 698 patients are described. Sinus widths are measured at second premolar, first and second molar on both sides, and are compared among different types and subtypes. RESULTS: Narrow tapered sinus occupies 88% at second premolar sites, while tapered sinus occupies almost 50% at first and second molar sites. At second premolar and first molar sites, 62% are without recess types. While 92% are without recess types at second molar. Sinuses with BSR present in only three of 3765 sites. There is an increasing trend of sinus width from narrow tapered to irregular type. Sinus width of the group with recesses is significantly higher than the one without recess. At the end, we provide corresponding treatment recommendations for each sinus types and subtypes. CONCLUSION: This is the first classification system that gives treatment recommendations for sinus floor elevation surgery based on sinus contours. The classification system is consistent, easy to visualize, and practicable.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it