Analysis of anterior dentoalveolar and perioral aesthetic characteristics and their impact on the decision to undergo a Phase II orthodontic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Researchers have conducted extensive studies regarding dentoalveolar factors that affect anterior dental aesthetics; however, there is no consensus regarding how these factors affect orthodontic treatment decisions. Only a few studies have included multiple factors simultaneously. Therefore, the objective was to investigate if there are identifiable dentofacial and perioral aesthetic factors that bias laypeople towards discontinuing treatment after a phase I treatment with this fixed class II corrector. METHODS: An analysis of photos and dental casts of 60 children (23 males, 37 females) having received phase I orthodontic treatment with the Xbow appliance was conducted. Variables considered were incisor height and width measurements, incisor proportions, incisor angulations, vertical lip thickness, gingival/incisal display, smile width per cent, diastema, midline deviation, smile arc, gender, and use of a 2×4. A principal component analysis and a logistic regression were used to determine which factors related to a patient's likelihood of receiving further orthodontic treatment. RESULTS: Only the angulation of the right maxillary incisors was significantly related to a patient's likelihood (odds ratio 1.886 (1.004-3.466); P = 0.049) to proceed to phase II orthodontic treatment following phase I orthodontic treatment with the Xbow appliance. The odds of proceeding to phase II treatment were 86.6% greater with a one standard deviation increase in the angulation of the right central and lateral incisors. Other factors demonstrated trends but were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: Sample in subgroups was small, excluded smiles that did not expose the upper incisor crowns significantly, smiles in real life are observed three-dimensionally, other factors outside the aesthetic measurements were not considered in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the angulation of the maxillary right incisors was the most significant factor influencing the decision to undergo an orthodontic phase II.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".