Posttreatment and physiologic occlusal changes comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare posttreatment and postretention occlusal changes with the physiologic occlusal changes caused by natural development of untreated subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample was divided into three groups. Group 1 comprised 97 subjects treated with four premolar extractions at a mean pretreatment (T0) age of 13.03 years, a mean posttreatment (T1, first observation) age of 15.12 years, and a mean postretention (T2, second observation) age of 20.52 years. The mean observation period (T2-T1) was 5.39 years. Group 2 comprised 58 subjects treated nonextraction at a mean pretreatment age of 12.83 years, a mean posttreatment age of 14.99 years, a mean postretention age of 20.22 years, and a mean observation period of 5.22 years. Group 3 comprised 114 untreated subjects at a mean age at T1 of 14.91 years and at T2 of 20.48 years. The mean observation period was 5.56 years. Dental casts were evaluated using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and the Little irregularity index in maxillary and mandibular arches. Changes in PAR and Little indexes were compared among the three groups by analysis of variance and Tukey tests. RESULTS: Intergroup comparison showed that at T1 and T2 the treated groups presented smaller PAR and Little indexes than the untreated group. In the observation period, the treated groups showed greater increase in PAR and Little maxillary indexes than the untreated group. The extraction group showed a greater increase of the Little mandibular index than the untreated group. CONCLUSIONS: The treated groups showed more changes according to PAR and Little maxillary indexes than the untreated group. The posttreatment change of the mandibular anterior crowding of the treated extraction group was greater than the mandibular crowding caused by physiologic changes in the untreated group.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".