Radiographic assessment of external root resorption associated with jackscrew-based maxillary expansion therapies: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in adolescents and young adults if jackscrew-based maxillary expansion therapies result in external root resorption as measured in vivo via any radiological method. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic search of several electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, LILACS) with the assistance of a senior librarian specialized in Health Sciences database searches through 25 August 2013, as well as a limited grey-literature search (Google Scholar). Human, in vivo studies of adolescents or young adults with transverse maxillary deficiency undergoing non-surgical maxillary expansion therapy through the use of a jackscrew-based maxillary expander with a radiographical assessment of root resorption were selected for full article review. Additionally, manual searches of reference lists of relevant articles were completed to identify additional publications not identified by electronic searches. The lowest levels of evidence accepted for inclusion were case-control studies or consecutively treated series of cases. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data from selected studies. RESULTS: A total of 83 original articles were identified from the electronic database and limited grey-literature searches. Once selection criteria were applied, only three articles satisfied all inclusion criteria, and individual analysis of the selected articles was undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Two-dimensional periapical radiographs do not fully reveal the amount of external root resorption associated with maxillary expansion therapy, except for frank apical root resorption. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography radiography displays statistically significant root volume loss associated with maxillary expansion therapy. However, when considering volume-loss percentages, no statistical significance was found.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".