Incidence of nasopalatine canal perforation in relation to virtual implant placement: A cone beam computed tomography study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The nasopalatine canal (NPC) is of special importance when considering implant therapy in the maxillary central incisors' region. PURPOSE: To investigate the incidence of NPC perforation in relation to virtual immediate implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search through the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) database of The University of Oklahoma-College of Dentistry was conducted. First, canal related measurements were conducted. Second, digital prosthetic planning was performed. Then, immediate implants were virtually placed and additional measurements were performed. Perforation rate was assessed. Last, data obtained was statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 217 scans fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only 8% of cases showed NPC perforation. The perforation occurred at mid-third of the implant or at the mid and apical third in 33% and 22% of the cases, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between perforation of NPC and bone width palatal to the root of the central incisor (P < .0001) as well as canal angulation (P = .0196). NPC angulation (°) and palatal bone width (mm) predisposed to a higher risk of perforation. Only 27.78% of the perforations could be overcome by the installation of shorter implants. CONCLUSIONS: Low incidence of NPC perforation could be expected when immediately placing implants in the maxillary incisor region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".