MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404039053 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000010866

Using the Nasopalatine Canal for Enhanced Distribution in Severely Atrophic Maxilla With Immediate Loading of Zygomatic Implants: An 8-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4404039053 on OpenAlexaff
Yerko Leighton, Raphael Freitas de Souza, Eduardo Borie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaxillaDentistryImplantRetrospective cohort studyDental prosthesisOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents retrospective 8-year clinical performance data from a patient cohort treated with immediately loaded maxillary full prostheses supported by zygomatic implants combined with implants placed in the nasopalatine canal, as a treatment for severely resorbed edentulous ridges. A retrospective analysis was conducted on data of maxillary edentulous patients with severe bone atrophy. All of them received zygomatic implants in combination with an implant placed in the nasopalatine foramen and an immediately loaded fixed temporary prosthesis in the first 24 hours. The frequency of major and minor adverse events was presented according to the time of occurrence. Fifteen patients were included in the study, without cases of implant loss or sensitivity in the nasopalatine region were observed up to 8 years. Only 1 major complication was observed, whereas minor complications were more frequent. In conclusion, this 8-year follow-up study demonstrated that the nasopalatine canal can be considered a viable implant site, with no major risks, to improve biomechanics by enabling a polygonal distribution in severely atrophic maxillae treated with zygomatic implants and immediate loading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207