Prevalence and patterns of permanent tooth agenesis in Down syndrome and their association with craniofacial morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To (1) document the prevalence and patterns of hypodontia (permanent tooth agenesis) in Down syndrome (DS) and (2) explore whether maxillary or mandibular hypodontia or simultaneous agenesis of all third molars was associated with differential alterations of the craniofacial morphology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Longitudinal panoramic radiographs of 25 white patients with DS (12 male, 13 female; mean age, 15.1 years) treated at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, were evaluated to document hypodontia. Cephalometric measurements of subjects with maxillary or mandibular hypodontia or agenesis of all third molars were compared with those of subjects without hypodontia in these regions using analysis of covariance adjusted for age, gender, and proportion of other missing teeth in the total number of missing teeth. RESULTS: Hypodontia was seen in 92% of the sample when third molars were considered and in 56% when third molars were not considered. Hypodontia was more prevalent and severe in females. The most frequently agenetic teeth were maxillary and mandibular third molars > maxillary lateral incisors > mandibular second premolars > mandibular incisors > maxillary second premolars > maxillary second molars. Simultaneous agenesis of all third molars was seen in 52% of the sample. Maxillary hypodontia was not associated with significant regional craniofacial differences, while mandibular hypodontia was associated with decreased mandibular length and increased ramus∶body ratio. Agenesis of all third molars was not associated with significant craniofacial differences. CONCLUSIONS: Hypodontia is widely prevalent in DS. The effect of the syndrome appears to be stronger than that of regional hypodontia in differentially altering the craniofacial morphology.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".