Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dental, skeletal, and soft tissue effects during Twin-block treatment. METHODS: A systematic search of several electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, all EBM reviews, and Web of Science) was conducted until July 2013, as well as a limited grey-literature search (Google Scholar). Human cephalometric studies that used a Twin-block appliance in a non-extraction and non-surgical approach were selected. A comparable control group of untreated subjects was required. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data from the selected studies. Risk of bias was assessed. The type of meta-analysis was selected based on heterogeneity. RESULTS: Ultimately 10 articles were included. Proclination of lower incisors, retroclination of upper incisors, distal movement of upper molars and/or mesial movement of lower molars, increase in mandibular length, and/or forward movement of the mandible were consistently reported. Clinically significant restraint of maxillary growth was not found. Although the mandibular body length is increased, the facial impact of it is reduced by the simultaneous increment of the face height. Changes of lower face height and occlusal plane inclination varied, suggesting that vertical dimension can be manipulated in patients who would benefit from lower molar extrusion. As for lip position, there is not enough evidence to suggest clear lip position changes. CONCLUSIONS: Changes associated with a Class II correction were identified. Most of the changes individually were of limited clinical significance, but when combined reached clinical importance. No long-term changes were available.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".