The Use of Miniplate Osteosynthesis for Skeletal Anchorage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the use of miniplates as skeletal anchorages for orthodontic treatment and to investigate the stability of miniplates and the causes of failure. METHODS: Forty-four miniplates were applied in the maxilla or mandible as skeletal anchorages in orthodontic treatment. Two weeks later, a force of 100 to 200 g was applied by an elastometric chain or nickel-titanium coil spring to move the teeth. To compare nominal variables related to miniplate failure, the chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used. RESULTS: The average insertion time of a miniplate was approximately 25 to 30 minutes. One miniplate loosened before orthodontic force loading. The other miniplate was removed after orthodontic force loading. The overall success rate was 95.5 percent. The authors found no significant differences in the risk factors for failure of miniplates. CONCLUSIONS: Miniplates are easy to insert for skeletal anchorage, simplify treatment mechanics, and shorten the orthodontic treatment period.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".