The monitoring of gingival crevicular fluid volume during orthodontic treatment: a longitudinal randomized split-mouth study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This randomized split-mouth study was aimed at evaluating whether an orthodontic appliance per se or orthodontic tooth movement can induce detectable changes in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) volume, and thus whether GCF volume is a predictable biomarker for tissue remodelling incident to orthodontic tooth movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen healthy orthodontic patients (7 females and 9 males; mean age, 17.7 years; range, 13-27 years) with the need for extraction of the first upper premolars were enrolled. One randomly chosen maxillary canine was subjected to a distalizing force by a 0.017 × 0.025 inch titanium-molybdenum alloy archwire and considered as the test tooth (TT). The contralateral canine, which was not subjected to any force but was included in an orthodontic appliance, was used as a control (CT). GCF sampling was performed at both mesial and distal sites of the CTs and TTs at baseline, immediately before applying the orthodontic appliance, and after 1 hour, 24 hours, and 7, 14, and 21 days. A Periotron was used to measure the GCF volume. A modest but significant increase in the GCF volume over time was seen in both the CTs (mesial sites) and the TTs (both mesial and distal sites) with no differences between the experimental teeth. Subclinical tissue inflammation consequent to the placement of the orthodontic appliance might be responsible for these GCF volume changes. The GCF volume does not appear to be a reliable biomarker for tissue remodelling during orthodontic treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".