MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403084797 · doi:10.7759/cureus.70753

Exploring Anatomical Variations in the Bony Architecture of the Greater Palatine Canal in Dry Bones

2024· article· en· W4403084797 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Hafeez, Ali Z Ansari, Srihita Patibandla, Nilay Bhatt, Khan Ma, Muhammad Malik, Abdulmanan Abid, Summaya F Khan, Laasya Patibandla

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersAmerican Association for Anatomy
KeywordsMedicineAnatomyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The greater palatine canal (GPC) holds significant clinical importance due to its role in providing access to the branches of the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve. Anatomical variations within this posterior maxillary region can complicate the surgical anatomy, making the identification of vital structures challenging. Therefore, a thorough understanding of both normal anatomy and common anatomical variations of the GPC is essential to minimize perioperative complications during surgical procedures. This study aims to investigate the bony architecture of the GPC in dry bones to identify anatomical variations and address significant lacunae in our current understanding of this structure. Despite its impact on the management of various dental and surgical procedures, there remains a limited and sometimes inconsistent knowledge of the normal and variant anatomy of the GPC. Existing literature often lacks comprehensive detail regarding the range of anatomical variations and their implications for surgical approaches. By systematically documenting these variations, this study aims to bridge these gaps in knowledge, justify the need for continued research in this area, and highlight its potential clinical implications. Materials and methods In total, 30 dried and intact adult skull specimens were selected, consisting of 19 males (63.3%) and 11 females (36.7%). The selection criteria included an intact hard palate with fully erupted third molars and an intact lateral nasal wall on both sides. The presence of erupted third molars was used to assess the degree of bone resorption, ensuring that only specimens with minimal bone loss were included. The exclusion criteria ruled out specimens with major craniofacial deformities, excessive bone resorption, and signs of advanced age. The bony walls of the GPC were observed by passing a black wire made of rubber material with a consistent diameter (approximately 5 mm), allowing us to qualitatively assess the bore of the canal. Results In four out of 30 specimens (13.3%), significant variations were noted in the bony medial wall of the GPC. Of these, three specimens were male (75%) and one was female (25%). These variations have been categorized into four distinct types for clarity and analysis. Type 1, in a male specimen, showed a deficiency in the lower segment of the bony medial wall of the left GPC above the greater palatine foramen. Type 2, in a male specimen, had a small bar of bone in the left GPC midway between the foramen and the pterygopalatine fossa. Type 3, in a female specimen, exhibited a small bar of bone above the greater palatine foramen on the right side, with no wall above it. Type 4, in a male specimen, displayed a bar of bone above the greater palatine foramen on the right side, with the medial wall completely absent on the left side. Conclusion The study identified anatomical variations in the bony architecture of the GPC based on dry bone specimens. While these findings offer insights into potential variations that could affect surgical procedures, their clinical implications need validation through patient-based studies. Understanding these variations is crucial for improving preoperative planning and reducing surgical risks, but recommendations should be cautious given the limited sample size. Further research with larger samples and clinical validation is needed to fully understand the embryological basis and potential impact on surgical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207