Retrospective study of clinical complications during orthodontic treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint Herbst or with a cantilever Herbst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical complications during treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint (RMS) or with a cantilever (HC) Herbst appliance. METHODS: Records from 159 Class II, division 1, consecutively treated patients with a Herbst appliance were examined. The sample was composed of 82 male and 77 female patients with a mean age of 11.8 years. The Herbst appliance was used for a mean of 12 months (standard deviation 2.15 months). Two main Herbst groups were analyzed: group RMS (n = 125) and group HC (n = 34). They were further subdivided according to the telescopic system used (Dentaurum type 1 or PMA) and fixation mode (splint with crowns or Grip Tite bands). Patients' clinical records were assessed to identify clinical complications. RESULTS: The incidence of complications during treatment was 85.3% for the HC group and 88.0% for the RMS group, with no statistically significant difference (Mann-Whitney test, P > .05). The fixation mode (crown or band) also did not show a statistically significant difference (P > .05). Regarding the telescopic system used, the Dentaurum group had 2.9 times more susceptibility to complications than the PMA group, regardless of the Herbst type. CONCLUSIONS: On average, approximately 2.5 complications per patient were reported. Most patients had a maximum of three complications during Herbst treatment. Herbst appliance type (RMS or HC) and fixation mode (crowns or Grip Tite bands) did not influence the number of complications. The PMA (without screws) telescopic system seemed to be more reliable (regarding the number of complications) than Dentaurum type 1, regardless of the appliance design (RMS or HC).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".