Likelihood of needing facial bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla of Chinese Asians: A cone beam computed tomography virtual implant study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The perfect position and axis of an implant is often limited by the morphology of the alveolar ridge, especially in Asians. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency at which ideal implant placement position in the anterior maxilla of Chinese Asians would require facial bone augmentation given by an initial facial bone profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were virtually placed in 303 sites without tooth loss in the anterior maxilla. The incidence and characters of implant facial plate fenestration were analyzed. If there was no facial fenestration, the thinnest buccal plate (TB) amount adjacent to the implant was measured and recorded. RESULTS: , respectively. In the nonfenestrated sites, the TB of facial bone around the virtual implants was 1.10 ± 0.78 mm. Among the 224 nonfenestrated sites, 126 sites had a TB of less than 1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the initial facial bone profile should be considered when designing restorations and choosing an optimal implant position in the anterior maxilla.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".