MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887441113 · doi:10.4317/jced.54310

Tridimensional assessment of the dental follicle dimensions of impacted mandibular third molars using cone-beam CT

2018· article· en· W2887441113 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene Barroso, Luis Ernesto Arriola‐Guillén, YA. Rodríguez-Cárdenas, Gustavo Armando Ruíz-Mora, María Eugenia Guerrero, Carlos Flores‐Mir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone beam computed tomographyMolarCoronal planeOrthodonticsSagittal planeVestibular systemDentistryMandibular second molarMedicineImpactionSignificant differenceMandibular first molarComputed tomographyAnatomyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The present study was performed to compare follicle dimensions of impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) with different impaction angulations using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: Forty-nine individuals with IMTM (24 male, 25 female) were selected. Their age range was 25-55 years. The sample was divided into three IMTM groups either vertical (n=16), mesioangular (n=18) or horizontal (n=15) position based on Winter's classification (the angle between the longitudinal axis of the second and third molars). Follicular spaces (FS) from available CBCT imaging were measured from the midpoint of the teeth's crown in several dimensions (mesial, distal, occlusal, apical, vestibular and lingual) in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. An ANOVA, T-student, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used. Results: A comparison of the mesial FS for all groups revealed significant differences (p<0.001). Significant difference was also found for vestibular FS between the vertical and mesioangular IMTM groups (p=0.04). Buccolingual FS for all groups revealed no significant differences (p=0.074), whereas significant difference was found for the vertical and horizontal IMTM groups (p=0.02). No significant statistical differences were found for occlusal (p=0.54), apical (p=0.06), and lingual (p=0.64) FS. Conclusions: In this sample IMTM follicles have different dimensions according to their degree of angulation. Mesioagulated and horizontally positioned IMTMs seems to consistently have some increased FS dimensions (mesial and vestibular aspects).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental DentistrySame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207