Anteroposterior length of the maxillary complex and its relationship with the anterior cranial base:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To use both absolute anteroposterior maxillary complex length (APMCL) and relative APMCL to investigate the relationship between the maxillary complex, its individual bony segments, and their association to the anterior cranial base. In addition, the relationship between length and position of the maxillary complex was analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty human skulls were analyzed using cone beam computed tomography. The maxillary complex length was measured between anterior and posterior nasal spine (ans-pns), and the average was used as the cut-off to identify a high- and a low-length group based on absolute APMCL. The length ratio between the maxillary complex and the anterior cranial base (ans-pns/SN) was used to identify the two groups based on relative APMCL. The anterior cranial base length and the lengths of the maxillary complex bones were compared between the high- and low-length groups. RESULTS: Based on absolute APMCL, individuals with shorter maxillary complex had shorter anterior cranial base (P = .003), representing normal proportions. Based on relative APMCL, individuals with shorter maxillary complex had longer anterior cranial base and vice versa (P = .014), indicating disproportions. Individuals with shorter maxillary complex exhibited shorter maxilla (Δ = -1.5 mm, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: When skeletal deformity of the midface is suspected, individual disproportions in the anteroposterior length of the maxillary complex in relation to the anterior cranial base (relative measurements) should be assessed through radiological imaging. A shorter maxillary complex may be associated with a shorter maxilla, and not with a shorter premaxilla or palatine bone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".