Evaluation of the distribution characteristics of the mandibular lingual foramen and its potential risks during implant surgery using cone‐beam computed tomography a cross‐sectional, retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The lingual foramen is a risk factor for implantation and other mandibular surgeries, but there are few systematic studies on the anatomical and distribution characteristics of the lingual foramen in the entire mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using 405 CBCT images. The anatomical characteristics and symmetrical distribution of the mandibular lingual foramen were analyzed. RESULTS: All patients had at least one lingual foramina. According to the positional relationship between the mandibular lingual foramen and the root apex of tooth, the mandibular lingual foramen is divided into the upper lingual foramen and the lower lingual foramen. Upper lingual foramen were divided into three types according to its running direction, namely Type 1 (Enters the mandible and descend in the direction of the lower edge of the mandible), Type 2 (Enters the mandible and descends in the direction of the lower edge of the mandible with branches), and Type 3 (It enters the mandible and divides into two branches, one ascends toward the crest of the alveolar ridge, and the other descends toward the lower edge of the mandible). And their respective prevalence are 84.0% [95% Tolerance Limit (TL) 81.2%-86.8%], 9.9% [95% TL 7.6%-12.1%], and 6.1% [95% TL 4.3%-8.0%]. In addition, the 81.8% [95% TL 79.0%-84.7%] of the upper lingual foramen is distributed in the central incisor area. Lower lingual foramen were divided into three categories according to the running direction, namely Category 1 (Enters the mandible and ascends toward the buccal bone plate), Category 2 (Enters the mandible and descends toward the buccal bone plate), and Category 3 (Go straight into the mandible toward the buccal bone plate). And their respective prevalence are 29.6% [95% TL 26.4%-32.7%], 50.9% [95% TL 47.5%-54.4%] and 19.5% [95% TL 16.8%-22.3%]. The frequency of lower lingual foramen distributed anteriorly to the mental foramen is 55.8% [95% TL 52.3%-59.2%], mid-mental foramen is 21.4%[95% TL 18.5%-24.2%], and posterior to the mental foramen is 22.8% [95% TL 20.0%-25.8%]. CONCLUSION: Both the upper and lower lingual foramina should be evaluated in the anterior, middle, and posterior regions of the mental foramen before implant surgeries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".