MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electromyographic Muscular Activity Improvement in Class II Patients Treated with the Pre-Orthodontic Trainer

2014· article· en· W2018543290 on OpenAlexaff
Е. А. Сатыго, А. В. Силин, German O Ramirez-Yañez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalocclusionTrainerDentistryElectromyographyOrthodonticsMasseter musclePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A study was designed to determine changes in the amplitude of the EMG muscular activity of the Masseter and Temporalis muscles at clench in children with a Class II, division 1 malocclusion treated with the pre-orthodontic Trainer functional appliance, for 12 months. STUDY DESIGN: 36 Class II, division 1 malocclusion patients (mean age 7.6 ± 1.3 years) composed the treated group and wore the functional appliance; 22 children with a similar age and malocclusion composed the untreated controls; and, 20 children with no dental malocclusion participated as normal controls. Electromyographic (EMG) muscular activity of the Temporalis and Masseter muscles were recorded before and after treatment. RESULTS: Subjects in the treated group reported a bilateral significant increase in the muscular electrical activity in the both tested muscles (p < 0.001). After treatment, they recorded values similar to those measured in normal controls, whereas the untreated controls remained on lower values. CONCLUSION: These results confirm that treatment with the pre-orthodontic Trainer functional appliance significantly increases the EMG muscular activity in the Temporalis and Masseter muscles at clench in patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Pediatric DentistrySame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207