Predictors of adolescent compliance with oral hygiene instructions during two-arch multibracket fixed orthodontic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine compliance with oral hygiene instructions (OHI) of adolescents receiving two-arch multibracket fixed appliances and identify its predictive factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients in a longitudinal study were provided standardized OHI and assessed at baseline: before bonding (T0mo), approximately 30 days after bonding (T1mo), and approximately 150 days (T5mo) after bonding straight-wire appliances simultaneously in the maxillary and mandibular arches. Oral hygiene (OH) performance was measured using plaque and gingival indices. Compliance predictors were identified from questionnaires administered to patients and their parents and from patients' charts. RESULTS: OH performance worsened from T0mo to T1mo but then improved from T1mo to T5mo. At T5mo, 73% of the sample had good OH. Univariate analyses found perceived severity of malocclusion, school performance, and parental marital status to be significant predictors of good OH performance at T5mo. Multiple logistic regressions identified having married parents and good academic performance in school as significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: In the sample studied, after initially worsening, compliance with OHI improved at 5 months after bonding. Adolescents with married parents and those reporting good academic performance in school were found more likely to have complied with OHI provided at baseline and to perform better OH.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".