Cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the twin block appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients. A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate facial soft tissue changes after the use of the twin block appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, Web of Science, and LILACS) were searched with the help of a senior health-sciences librarian. Abstracts that appeared to fulfill the initial selection criteria were selected by consensus, and the original articles were retrieved. The article references were hand-searched for possible missing articles. Clinical trials that assessed facial soft tissue changes with the use of the twin block appliance without any surgical intervention or syndromic characteristics were considered. A comparable untreated control group was required to factor out normal growth changes. RESULTS: Two articles fulfilled the selection criteria and quantified facial soft tissue changes. Although some statistically significant changes in the soft tissue profile were found, the magnitude of the changes may not be perceived as clinically significant. Changes produced in the upper lip seem to be controversial, although the study with sounder methodological quality did not report significant changes. No change in the anteroposterior position of the lower lip and the soft tissue menton or improvement of the facial convexity was found. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional quantification of the soft tissue changes is required to overcome current limitations in our understanding of the soft tissue changes obtained after the use of the twin block appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".