The effects of non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the vertical dimension: a comparison of a dolichofacial and a mesofacial group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The decision regarding extraction or non-extraction orthodontic treatment for patients with different skeletal facial patterns is more commonly based on traditional concepts rather than scientific facts. The present study aimed to investigate whether dolichofacial patients responded differently compared with mesofacial patients to non-extraction orthodontic treatment with respect to vertical changes in facial height. METHODS: Twenty-eight dolichofacial patients and 29 mesofacial patients who underwent non-extraction orthodontic treatment were selected. All patients commenced treatment prior to 15 years of age and had a mean age of 12.3 years for the dolichofacial group and 12.6 years for the mesofacial group. Serial lateral cephalometric radiographs were traced by hand on acetate paper and digitised using the Rocky Mountain Orthodontics JOE 32 programme. Statistical analysis examined the recorded changes in facial axis angle, facial angle, menton-to-ANS distance and facial convexity. RESULTS: An increase in menton-to-ANS distance and facial angle and a decrease in facial convexity were observed in both groups to a similar extent. Interestingly, the facial axis of both groups remained constant throughout treatment and up to two years post-treatment. Both groups showed slightly increased facial axis angle beyond the original value at two years post-treatment. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was observed in the changes of any of the variables over time. CONCLUSION: The results countered the traditional concept that dolichofacial patients would have an increased facial height after being subjected to non-extraction orthodontic mechanics. It appeared that long-term vertical height of the face was more dependent on genetics rather than environmental influences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".