Anatomical analysis of zygomatic bone in ectodermal dysplasia patients with oligodontia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormalities of some facial bones derived from the ectomesenchyme have been found in ectodermal dysplasia (ED) patients, but the characteristics of the zygoma are unknown. PURPOSE: Comparison between ED patients and normal individuals to understand the anatomical features of the zygoma in ED patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients diagnosed with ED based on clinical features and/or gene sequence tests and 80 normal individuals were recruited from 2016 to 2018. The thickness of the zygomatic body at 12 points on the superior, middle, and inferior areas and the length of four lines were measured on a three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography image. Differences between ED patients and normal individuals were then compared. RESULTS: The zygomatic thicknesses and lengths were smaller in ED patients than in normal individuals. For ED patients, the largest thicknesses on the superior, middle, and inferior areas of the zygoma were 8.47 ± 1.49, 7.03 ± 1.56, and 5.99 ± 1.22 mm. CONCLUSION: The development of zygomatic thickness on the inferior area and the zygomatic length were insufficient in ED patients with oligodontia. Consequently, zygomatic hypoplasia presented difficulties for the "quad approach" to zygomatic implants in this group of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".