Preventive and interceptive orthodontic treatment needs of an inner-city group of 6- and 9-year-old Canadian children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early recognition of developing malocclusions and the potential for uncomplicated orthodontic treatment procedures can minimize or eliminate future costly treatment. This study was designed to assess the potential for this approach in children living in a limited-income environment. A modified index for preventive and interceptive orthodontic needs (IPION) was used to determine the need for such treatment in schoolchildren aged 6 and 9 years. METHODS: Two calibrated examiners examined each child independently and assessed several components of his or her occlusion, including molar relationship, crossbite, open bite, overbite and overjet. Dental variables such as presence of caries and early loss of teeth were also noted. Informed consent was obtained and all children present at school on the day of the field study were included. A total of 395 children were divided into 2 groups, aged 6 and 9 years. RESULTS: A high prevalence of caries in the deciduous dentition (30.4% for 6 year olds; 20.6% for 9 year olds) and early loss of primary teeth (11.9% for 6 year olds; 29.4% for 9 year olds) was observed. A large percentage of children had crossbite in the anterior or posterior segments, or both. Open bites were also a common finding. Future orthodontic problems were identified in 28% of this population by using the modified IPION. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between sexes or age groups using the chi2 test. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the developing malocclusions identified in this study would be amenable to interceptive orthodontics, consisting of space maintenance, crossbite correction and arch expansion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".