The neglected maxillary process of the palatine bone

Krmpotić‐Nemanić, Jelena; Vinter, Ivan; Kelović, Zlatko; Suknaić, Slaven

doi:10.1016/s0940-9602(03)80010-9

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite invitations from the FCAT, the IANC failed to collaborate on the TA project, which demonstrates the problems in trying to establish a standardized terminology (Whitmore, 1999;Kachlik et al, 2008). Pleas for standardization of anatomical nomenclature have been made (Momjian et al, 1999;Rosse, 2001) and corrections (Mirilas and Skandalakis, 2002;Krmpotic-Nemanic and Vinter, 2003a,b), revisions (Wendell-Smith, 2000b;Caggiati et al, 2002;Vavilov and Kosourov, 2004;Ercoli et al, 2005), and expansions (Wendell-Smith, 2000a;Caggiati et al, 2002;Krmpotic-Nemanic et al, 2003;Ercoli et al, 2005) of TA are needed. The usage of eponyms has stimulated discussion on the pros and cons in the past and currently is discouraged (Bujalkova, 1999;Duque-Parra et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency in usage of FCAT‐approved anatomical terms by North American anatomists

Martin

Thorpe

Barnes³

et al. 2009

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been 10 years since the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology (FCAT) published Terminologia Anatomica (TA), the current authority on anatomical nomenclature. There exists a perceived lack of unity among anatomists to adopt many FCAT recommended anatomical terms in TA. An e-mail survey was sent to members of the American Association of Anatomists (AAA) to determine the frequency of FCAT term usage by North American anatomists. The survey consisted of 29 questions, including 25 different sets of synonymic names for selected gross anatomical structures or related terms. Overall results indicate that the FCAT preferred term had the highest frequency of usage in only 44.0% of the survey questions. As frequency of use of FCAT terms decreased, the corresponding frequency of use of non-FCAT terms increased. Some questions showed almost complete compliance with the FCAT preferred terms (highest = 98.4% usage) to almost complete disregard for the FCAT terms (lowest = 0.8% usage). A slight association (P = 0.06) may exist between FCAT familiarity and concern for usage of synonymic terms. The more familiar anatomists were with the FCAT, the more concerned they were with anatomic synonyms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency in usage of FCAT‐approved anatomical terms by North American anatomists

Martin

Thorpe

Barnes³

et al. 2009

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several small attempts to draw attention to the problem have resulted in publications on inaccuracies in NA and TA but unfortunately no author reviewed it as a whole (Ajayi et al, 2013;Bartoska et al, 2013;Benninger, 2013;Benninger and Delamarter, 2013;Cheynet et al, 2003;Davidge et al, 2010;Ercoli et al, 2005;Ferreira et al, 2011;Grodinsky and Holyoke, 1938;Guidera et al, 2012;Hromada and Voboril, 1968;Isik et al, 2014;Kachlik et al, 2008bKachlik et al, , 2010aKodama et al, 1987;Krmpotić-Nemanić and Vinter, 2003b;Krmpotić-Nemanić et al, 2003;Lengelé and Scalliet, 2009;Lobo and Menezes, 2011;Loukas et al, 2007;Matusz, 2010Matusz, , 2011Mirilas and Skandalakis, 2002;O'Brien et al, 2013;Paraskevas, 2011;Pauza et al, 1997;Ribas, 2010;Rodríguez-Hernández et al, 2011;Rohrich et al, 2008;Saleh et al, 2012;Schurter and Letterman, 1976;Shokrollahi et al, 2014;Skandalakis et al, 2006;Starmühler, 2011;Tran-Dinh, 1987;Vavilov and Kosourov, 2004;Voboril, 1985;Vojniković et al, 2013;Wende...…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terminologia Anatomica after 17 years: Inconsistencies, mistakes and new proposals

Kachlík

Musil

Báča

2015

Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3 Namon 14 described a unilateral IT mucocele suspected to originate from a PIT. 15 This may also be related to pneumatization of the lower turbinate. 5 FIGURE 4.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pneumatization of the Inferior Turbinates

Ozturk¹,

Alataş²,

Öztürk³

et al. 2005

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of PIT was found to be 1 in 250 cases. It is suggested that most PIT cases may be a result of articulation defects between the maxillary process of the palatine bone and the maxillary bone. In such a situation, the maxillary process of the palatine bone and the nasal process of the maxillary bone, which form the medial wall of the maxillary sinus at the IT level, can attach to the IT separately.

show abstract

The neglected maxillary process of the palatine bone

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Frequency in usage of FCAT‐approved anatomical terms by North American anatomists

Frequency in usage of FCAT‐approved anatomical terms by North American anatomists

Terminologia Anatomica after 17 years: Inconsistencies, mistakes and new proposals

Pneumatization of the Inferior Turbinates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About