Presurgical Cleft Lip Anthropometrics and Dental Arch Relationships in Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between anthropometric lip measurements and dental arch relationships in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Children with CUCLP. METHODS: Anthropometric lip measurements, made immediately prior to lip repair, were available for each patient. The dental arch relationships were evaluated on dental study casts (8.6 ± 0.9 years) taken prior to any orthodontic treatment and prior to alveolar bone graft, using the modified Huddart and Bodenham (MHB) scoring system. The presence of associations between anthropometric lip measurements and dental arch relationships was determined using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: In the 63 patients included in the study, the cleft lateral lip element was deficient in height in 87% and in transverse width in 86% of patients. Patients with more deficient cleft-side lateral lip height were more likely to present with more negative MHB scores (r = .443; P < .001). Conversely, patients with more deficient cleft-side lateral lip transverse width more often presented with more positive MHB scores (r = .281; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CUCLP, there is a wide variability in the degree of deficiency of the cleft-side lateral lip element, both in the vertical and in the transverse dimension. The extent of this deficiency may, in part, predict the resulting dental arch relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".