Lack of pulp sensitivity in maxillary canines submitted to orthodontic traction: a retrospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthodontic movement may cause a great number of tissue alterations in the dental pulp. However, these changes may not be entirely recognized owing to the difficulty in simulating clinical situations. Objective: The aim of this study was to clinically assess the incidence of negative pulp sensitivity to cold among maxillary canines in infraocclusion submitted to orthodontic traction. Material and methods: Two study groups were selected: an experimental group, comprising 32 canine teeth with complete root formation that had been submitted to orthodontic traction, and a control group, comprising 32 canine teeth with complete root formation that had never been submitted to any orthodontic movement. Results: Fourteen teeth from the experimental group showed lack of pulp sensitivity, whereas only one tooth from the control group showed negative pulp sensitivity. Fischer’s exact test revealed a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, the teeth that had been submitted to orthodontic traction were more likely to lack sensitivity than those that had not been submitted to the same procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".