Correlation between Facial Morphology and Esthetics in Patients with Repaired Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if there were correlations between anthropometric nasolabial measurements and subjective assessments of nasal esthetics in individuals with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 28 individuals with repaired CUCLP and 20 age- and gender-matched individuals without clefts. OUTCOME MEASURES: Nasolabial morphology was assessed using 2D and 3D measurements made on frontal photographs, lateral cephalometric radiographs, and plaster nose casts. A panel of orthodontists rated nasal esthetics from frontal, lateral, three-quarter, and basal view photographs and plaster nose casts using visual analog scales, and they also order ranked the nose casts. Based on the nasal esthetics ratings and rankings, two groups that had the best and the worst esthetics representing the extremes of nasolabial esthetics were statistically identified. Measurements were compared between the cleft and noncleft and the best and worst groups using t tests and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Differences in anthropometric measurements between the groups were identified. The columellar width and nose base and nasolabial angles significantly differed between the best and worst groups (p < .05). Differences in panel ratings of nasolabial esthetics between the best and worst groups were statistically detected using lateral and three-quarter view photographs (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although morphologic differences between the cleft and noncleft and between the best and worst groups were identified, the slight morphologic differences noted were not sufficient to explain the subjective esthetic evaluation by the panel.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".