Lower incisor dentoalveolar compensation and symphysis dimensions among Class I and III malocclusion patients with different facial vertical skeletal patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare lower incisor dentoalveolar compensation and mandible symphysis morphology among Class I and Class III malocclusion patients with different facial vertical skeletal patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lower incisor extrusion and inclination, as well as buccal (LA) and lingual (LP) cortex depth, and mandibular symphysis height (LH) were measured in 107 lateral cephalometric x-rays of adult patients without prior orthodontic treatment. In addition, malocclusion type (Class I or III) and facial vertical skeletal pattern were considered. Through a principal component analysis (PCA) related variables were reduced. Simple regression equation and multivariate analyses of variance were also used. RESULTS: Incisor mandibular plane angle (P < .001) and extrusion (P = .03) values showed significant differences between the sagittal malocclusion groups. Variations in the mandibular plane have a negative correlation with LA (Class I P = .03 and Class III P = .01) and a positive correlation with LH (Class I P = .01 and Class III P = .02) in both groups. Within the Class III group, there was a negative correlation between the mandibular plane and LP (P = .02). PCA showed that the tendency toward a long face causes the symphysis to elongate and narrow. In Class III, alveolar narrowing is also found in normal faces. CONCLUSIONS: Vertical facial pattern is a significant factor in mandibular symphysis alveolar morphology and lower incisor positioning, both for Class I and Class III patients. Short-faced Class III patients have a widened alveolar bone. However, for long-faced and normal-faced Class III, natural compensation elongates the symphysis and influences lower incisor position.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".