Comparison of the Paranasal Sinus Features of Paediatric Patients with and Without Cleft Palate: A CBCT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study is performed to compare the paranasal sinus volumes in paediatric unilateral cleft palate (UCP) and healthy patients. Methods Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 80 patients (40 boys, 40 girls) with UCP and 80 healthy individuals (40 boys, 40 girls) were evaluated. Paranasal sinus volumes were segmented and measured using ITK-SNAP software. Descriptive statistics, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, paired sample t-test and student t-test were performed for statistical analysis. Results The volumes of ethmoid, frontal and sphenoid sinus on the cleft side were not significantly different than the non-cleft side (p>0.05) in UCP patients. Maxillary sinus volume of the cleft side in UCP patients was significantly lower than the non-cleft side (p<0.05). Mean maxillary sinus volume in UCP patients was 11825.23±509.95 mm 3 at the cleft side and 13497.85±358.07 mm 3 at the non-cleft side. While the mean volumes of ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses of patients with UCP were not significantly different from healthy individuals (p>0.05), the mean volumes of maxillary and frontal sinuses were significantly lower than healthy individuals (p<0.05). The mean maxillary sinus volume in UCP patients was 25323±597.8 mm 3 and 26666±874.3 mm 3 in the control group. The mean frontal sinus volume in UCP patients was 5633±323.1 mm 3 and 5735±315.2 mm 3 in the control group. Conclusions UCP caused a significant reduction in maxillary and frontal sinus volumes. The results of the current study show that paranasal sinus volumes in patients with UCP should be examined in more detail to make more risk-free and effective treatment plans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".