MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992351227 · doi:10.1179/14653121141452

Mandibular incisor extraction: a systematic review of an uncommon extraction choice in orthodontic treatment

2011· review· en· W1992351227 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthodontics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryDentistryIncisorMalocclusionOrthodonticsMEDLINEMandibular incisorOcclusionMeta-analysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To review the published literature in order to address clinical questions regarding the indications, effects and outcomes of mandibular incisor extraction in orthodontics. DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases were searched: PubMed (1950-January 2011), Ovid Embase+Ovid Embase Classic (1947-January 2011) and Cochrane library (6 Cochrane databases, 1996-January 2011). The following journals were additionally searched: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1960-January 2011), Angle Orthodontist (1960-January 2011), European Journal of Orthodontics (1970-January 2011) and Journal of Orthodontics (1974-January 2011). Grey literature was searched using Google Scholar and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe. Secondary search of the references cited in the relevant articles was also conducted. DATA SELECTION: Articles in vivo, in Humans, in English, concerning treatment of malocclusion with mandibular incisor extractions or missing mandibular incisors. Fifty-four publications met these inclusion criteria and were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers with regard to: (1) indications; (2) contraindications; (3) effects; (4) outcomes; and (5) factors associated with successful outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Considering the descriptive nature of the studies found, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: The descriptive nature of published articles precludes making strong evidence-based recommendations regarding this extraction choice, but it is clear that mandibular incisor extraction can be effectively used in the resolution of crowding, as well as intermaxillary malocclusion in carefully selected cases. Several factors that could lead to good outcomes of orthodontic treatment following mandibular incisor extraction were identified. Mild-to-moderate class III malocclusion, an edge-to-edge anterior occlusion or anterior crossbite, with mild anterior mandibular tooth size excess, and minimal open bite tendencies were the clinical situations most frequently treated with this unique extraction choice. On the other hand, clinicians should be careful to avoid poor outcomes such as gingival recession, open interproximal gingival embrasures, increased overjet and overbite.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it