Dental Tissue Density in Healthy Children Based on Radiological Data: Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Information about the range of Hounsfield values for healthy teeth tissues could become an additional tool in assessing dental health and could be used, among other data, for subsequent machine learning. Objective: The purpose of our study was to determine dental tissue densities in Hounsfield units (HU). Methods: The total sample included 36 healthy children (n=21, 58% girls and n=15, 42% boys) aged 10-11 years at the time of the study. The densities of 320 teeth tissues were analyzed. Data were expressed as means and SDs. The significance was determined using the Student (1-tailed) t test. The statistical significance was set at P<.05. Results: The densities of 320 teeth tissues were analyzed: 72 (22.5%) first permanent molars, 72 (22.5%) permanent central incisors, 27 (8.4%) second primary molars, 40 (12.5%) tooth germs of second premolars, 37 (11.6%) second premolars, 9 (2.8%) second permanent molars, and 63 (19.7%) tooth germs of second permanent molars. The analysis of the data showed that tissues of healthy teeth in children have different density ranges: enamel, from mean 2954.69 (SD 223.77) HU to mean 2071.00 (SD 222.86) HU; dentin, from mean 1899.23 (SD 145.94) HU to mean 1323.10 (SD 201.67) HU; and pulp, from mean 420.29 (SD 196.47) HU to mean 183.63 (SD 97.59) HU. The tissues (enamel and dentin) of permanent central incisors in the mandible and maxilla had the highest mean densities. No gender differences concerning the density of dental tissues were reliably identified. Conclusions: The evaluation of Hounsfield values for dental tissues can be used as an objective method for assessing their densities. If the determined densities of the enamel, dentin, and pulp of the tooth do not correspond to the range of values for healthy tooth tissues, then it may indicate a pathology.
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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".