Maxillary arch changes with transpalatal arch treatment followed by full fixed appliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate short- and long-term maxillary dental arch dimensional changes in patients treated with a transpalatal arch (TPA) during mixed dentition followed by full fixed appliances in the permanent dentition compared with an untreated sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental casts and lateral cephalograms obtained from 36 consecutively treated patients before TPA treatment (T0), after TPA treatment (T1), after fixed appliance treatment (T2), and a minimum of 3 years after fixed appliance treatment (T3) were analyzed. The control group was matched as closely as possible. Arch widths, perimeter, and length, as well as crowding and incisor proclination, were evaluated. RESULTS: In the treated group, intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths and arch perimeter increased significantly at T1. At T2, only the intercanine width increase was still significant. At T3 all arch dimensions decreased, remaining larger than they were at T0. The arch length increased after T1, significantly decreased at T2, and slightly decreased at T3. The crowding decreased significantly at T1, was eliminated at T2, and increased at T3. At T3, 50% of the patients showed relapse with crowding ranging from 0.5 to 2 mm. In the control group at T1, only slight changes were noted but crowding increased. At T2, crowding and upper incisor inclination increased but arch length decreased. At T3, intercuspid width, arch perimeter, and arch length continued to decrease, thereby increasing crowding. CONCLUSION: Maxillary dental arch dimensions changed significantly after TPA followed by treatment with fixed appliances. Relapse occurred to some extent, especially in intercanine width and arch perimeter, but most of the dental arch changes remained stable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".