Permanent Tooth Agenesis and Maxillary Hypoplasia in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maxillary growth in patients with clefts is highly variable. The authors' aim was to investigate whether severity of maxillary hypoplasia is associated with the presence of permanent tooth agenesis in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. METHODS: Fifty children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were divided into two groups of 25 children. One group had tooth agenesis of the cleft maxillary lateral incisor, whereas the other did not. Panoramic radiographs, lateral cephalometric radiographs, and dental casts were available for all children in the mixed dentition phase before preparation for alveolar bone grafting. The Modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system was used to determine dental arch relationships on dental casts. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed. Differences between groups were investigated using independent samples t tests. RESULTS: Children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and tooth agenesis presented with more negative Modified Huddart/Bodenham scores (-12.4 ± 5.2) than those without tooth agenesis (-5.4 ± 3.5) (p < 0.001), representing more severe arch constriction. These children also presented cephalometrically with reduced basal maxillary length (2.2 mm shorter; p = 0.043), alveolar maxillary length (2.9 mm shorter; p = 0.009), and alveolar maxillary protrusion (2.9 degrees less; p = 0.049) compared to those without tooth agenesis. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and tooth agenesis demonstrate more deficient maxillary growth than those without tooth agenesis. This is evident in both the sagittal and vertical dimensions, and when looking at the dentoalveolar intermaxillary relationships. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".