Suffer the little children: Fixed intraoral habit appliances for treating childhood thumbsucking habits: a critical review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical review of the literature is presented covering the treatment of childhood thumbsucking habits using fixed intraoral habit appliances (hayrake, palatal crib). The habit appliances are classified into type and function. Data is tabulated for key references revealing the fragmented and distorted nature of the literature and its lack of consistency. A chronological approach is presented to confirm the confused and idiosyncratic character of the literature. Information is provided on the early work of Massler and Graber and the paradox of Mack, Korner and Reider. Haryett's seminal studies at the University of Alberta regarding aspects of the treatment used are critically reviewed. Reflections are presented on why Larsson's study, casting doubt on the wisdom of using habit appliances, continues to be ignored. The emergence of the Bluegrass Appliance is discussed in terms of its being a more humane appliance and the seeming reluctance of practitioners to apply it as a kinder form of appliance therapy. Information is reported on the pain and serious injuries inflicted on children by habit appliances. A comparison of the use of appliances in the USA is made with the UK, where fixed habit appliances are not popular. Concludes that fixed intraoral habit appliances are cruel and inflict pain and suffering on children out of all proportion to their necessity. Questions why these appliances continue to be used, implying that it could be a combination of financial inducement, professional insularity and the absence of concerted opposition from behavioural therapists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".