Preoperative Cleft Lip Measurements and Maxillary Growth in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Maxillary growth in patients with cleft lip and palate is highly variable. The authors' aim was to investigate associations between preoperative cleft lip measurements and maxillary growth determined cephalometrically in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (cUCLP). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Children with cUCLP. METHODS: Preoperative cleft lip measurements were made at the time of primary cheiloplasty and available for each patient. Maxillary growth was evaluated on lateral cephalometric radiographs taken prior to any orthodontic treatment and alveolar bone grafting (8.5 ± 0.7 years). The presence of associations between preoperative cleft lip measurements and cephalometric measures of maxillary growth was determined using regression analyses. RESULTS: In the 58 patients included in the study, the cleft lateral lip element was deficient in height in 90% and in transverse width in 81% of patients. There was an inverse correlation between cleft lateral lip height and transverse width with a β coefficient of -0.382 (P = .003). Patients with a more deficient cleft lateral lip height displayed a shorter maxillary length (β coefficient = 0.336; P = .010), a less protruded maxilla (β coefficient = .334; P = .008), and a shorter anterior maxillary height (β coefficient = 0.306; P = .020) than those with a less deficient cleft lateral lip height. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cUCLP present with varying degrees of lateral lip hypoplasia. Preoperative measures of lateral lip deficiency are related to later observed deficiencies of maxillary length, protrusion, and height.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".