An Anatomorphometric Study of Occipital Spurs and Their Association With Dental Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective The occipital spur (OS) can be described as an abnormal elongation of the external occipital protuberance (EOP); its etiology is multifactorial and may involve biomechanical, immunological, and/or genetic factors. This study aimed to determine the frequency and characteristics of elongated EOP or OS as well as the relationship of OS with occlusion in a group of Turkish dental patients. Materials and methods Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 1925 patients taken in 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The frequency, types, and dimensions of OS were determined based on gender and age groups. Molar occlusion and incisal bite were also evaluated. Results Of the 1925 patients, 679 were males and 1246 were females. The mean age of the cohort was 18.17 ±5.03 years (range: 4-61). OS was detected in 483 (25.1%) patients and was more common in males (p<0.001); 133 (27.5%) of the OSs were flat, 247 (51.1%) crest, and 103 (21.3%) spin type. The incidence of OS increased depending on age groups (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant association between OS presence and molar occlusion (p>0.05). However, a statistically significant association was observed between anterior incisal bite (p=0.001) and OS presence. There was a statistically significant difference in terms of OS sizes in males and females; the sizes of OS were larger in males than in females (length: p<0.05, base and thickness: p<0.001). Conclusions The frequency of OS was quite high in our cohort; it was more common and of larger size in males and older age groups. The most common type was the crest type. While there was no statistically significant association between OS frequency and molar occlusion, there was a significant relationship with incisal bite. The frequency of OS was highest in people with anterior crossbite.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".