Buccal and palatal alveolar bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla: A <scp>micro‐CT</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anterior maxillary immediate implant placement has become a popular procedure. It has aesthetic and functional risks. A prerequisite for success is sufficient alveolar bone for primary stability. Many cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies have assessed alveolar bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla, with varying results. More accurate information on the alveolar bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla is required. The objective of the present study was to evaluate bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla using micro-CT, a high-resolution imaging tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two human skulls were scanned using micro-CT at the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation. Specialized software was used for 3-D rendering, segmentation, and visualization of the reconstructed volume data. Axial planes were created over each alveolus/tooth from canine to canine. Buccal and palatal bone dimensions were measured at crestal, 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm levels. RESULTS: Buccal bone rarely exceeded 0.5 mm, consisting of bundle bone only for all investigated teeth at all levels. Up to a third of teeth showed buccal fenestrations. Alveolar bone on the palatal side was thicker than buccal and increased from <1 mm at crestal level up to 3.77 mm, 4.56 mm, and 5.43 mm for centrals, laterals, and canines at the 9 mm level, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implants in the anterior maxillae has anatomical risks. Alveolar bone on the buccal aspect is very thin, with fenestrations in certain positions. Therefore, a thorough planning and individual approach are needed to avoid possible complications and achieve stable aesthetic and functional results in the long-term.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".