Location and Presence of Permanent Teeth in a Complete Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the location and presence of permanent teeth in nonsyndromic complete bilateral cleft lip and palate patients from the Manitoba Centre for Craniofacial Difference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 1570 patients dating back to 1958 were assessed in this retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, providing 76 cleft site teeth: A tooth on each side of the cleft was considered to have developed from a single lateral incisor tooth bud. The pattern M was assigned when a tooth was found mesial to the cleft, D when distal, MD when mesial and distal and AB if none was found. Pattern M was noted 9.2% of the time; D, 47.4%; MD, 5.3%; and AB, 38.2%. Teeth outside the cleft site: In the maxilla, agenesis occurred in 11.9% of second premolars and 10.5% of central incisors. In the mandible, agenesis occurred in 4.0% of second premolars, 2.6% of lateral incisors, 2.6% of central incisors, and 2.6% of second molars. CONCLUSIONS: The lateral incisor was most commonly found distal to the cleft. Agenesis of the lateral incisor and teeth outside the cleft were more common than in noncleft populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".