CBCT data relevant in treatment planning for immediate maxillary molar implant placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study used CBCT images to evaluate the suitability of maxillary first and second molar sites to receive immediate implants. Buccopalatal and mesiodistal widths of maxillary molar inter-radicular septum were evaluated at three different levels (crestal, middle, and apical), in addition to assessments of the root apex and furcation proximities to the sinus floor and comparisons of these measurements between the first and second upper molar sites before extraction. Methods: A total of 427 dental sites from 223 patients were used to measure the buccopalatal and mesiodistal widths of inter-septal/furcal (IRS) bone of maxillary first and second molars and vertical distances from the furcation and from all the root apices to the sinus floor (SF). Results: Mean coronal-most buccopalatal/mesiodistal IRS widths were 7.33/6.52 mm for the first and 6.86/5.85 mm for the second molars (P=0.008). Corresponding mean FSD (furcation-sinus floor) values were 9.69 mm (range: 2.02-24.68 mm) and 8.84 mm (range: 1.48-25.09 mm). Mean distances from all the root apices to SF were <3 mm. The palatal roots of the first molars had higher sinus intrusion rates (28.85%) than their buccal counterparts, while for the second molars, the mesiobuccal roots showed the highest sinus intrusion (37.65%). Conclusion: In the current patient sample, 61.7% of the first and 34% of the second molars had a sufficiently broad IRS to encase a 5-mm-diameter IMI (immediate molar implant) completely. The mean FSD of 9 mm for both molars indicated that some sinus floor elevation would likely be needed unless short implants were used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".