New Numbering System for Teeth Following Hemisection, Bicuspidisation, and Root Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A P T A R A P Tooth numbering systems are essential for the accurate identification of teeth in clinical practice, research, and education.Accurate notation is not merely a matter of convenience but also directly influences communication, patient care, treatment outcomes, and the integrity of dental research.The existing tooth numbering systems, such as the Universal Numbering System and the F ed eration Dentaire Internationale (FDI) system, have been used for many years.The Universal Tooth Numbering System (also known as the Universal Dental Notation or U.S. System) is primarily used in the United States to identify and label teeth. 1 The F ed eration Dentaire Internationale (FDI) World Dental Numbering System is a widely accepted and well-established 2-digit notation.2 T a g g e d A P T A R A E n d T a g g e d A P T A R A PAlthough these systems have been in use for many years, Rajendra Santosh and Jones 3 suggested the inclusion of a 'dot' between the two numerals of the FDI system to differentiate the sextant number from the tooth number.For example, the maxillary left second molar historically documented as tooth 27 in the FDI notation is always pronounced as 'two-seven' and not 'twenty-seven', so as to prevent potential confusion with the Universal System where tooth 27 is the mandibular right canine.Rajendra Santosh and Jones 3 suggested that tooth 27 in the FDI system should be written as 2.7 with similar modifications to all teeth using that system.T a g g e d A P T A R A E n d T a g g e d A P T A R A P Although the existing tooth numbering systems are the most accepted format of tooth notation, they cannot be applied to clinical situations such as hemisection, bicuspidisation, and root resection, which are performed on multirooted teeth to separate them into various fragments/roots.4 This poses a unique challenge for the accurate identification of the remaining tooth roots post-procedure for documentation, treatment planning, follow-up, and communication with other professionals.The proposed numbering system is a modification of the current numbering systems that will resolve this limitation while maintaining accuracy and simplicity.T a g g e d A P T A
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".