Clinical outcomes for permanent incisor luxations in a pediatric population. III. Lateral luxations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A longitudinal outcome study was designed to identify variables that influenced tooth survival as well as pulpal and periodontal outcomes of laterally luxated permanent maxillary incisors of children and adolescents. All cases were treated between June 1988 and June 1998 in a teaching hospital clinic. Clinical and radiographic data were collected for 42 patients (26 males, 16 females) that represented 58 permanent maxillary incisors. Mean age at the time of injury was 11.4 years (range: 6.3-17.8 years). Mean follow-up time was 1460 days (range: 183-3905 days). In the entire sample (n = 58), no incisors required extraction. Survival analysis and logistic regression were used to identify variables significantly related to the survival and healing outcomes of these incisors. Pulp necrosis (PN) (40%) and pulp canal obliteration (PCO) (40%) were common healing complications. Proportional hazards (Cox) regression showed that PN develops within the first year. Logistic regression demonstrated that root development (P = 0.3, PN; P = 0.8, PCO) and extent of lateral luxation (P = 0.5, PN; P = 0.9, PCO) were not significantly related to PN and PCO. This study provides the first report of incisor survival in children and adolescents following lateral luxation injuries.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".