Long-term dental arch changes after rapid maxillary expansion treatment: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates long-term dental arch changes after rapid maxillary expansion treatment on orthodontic patients with constricted arches. Clinical trials that assessed dental arch changes through measurements on dental casts or cephalometric radiographs were selected. No patients with surgical or other simultaneous treatment during the active expansion period were accepted. Electronic databases were searched with the help of a senior Health Sciences librarian. Original articles were retrieved from the selected abstracts, and their references were also scanned for possible missing articles. Forty-one articles met the initial inclusion criteria, but 35 were later rejected because they lacked a control group or only evaluated dental changes or used a semirapid technique. Some of them also lacked a reported measurement error. From the remaining articles, two did not report a long-term evaluation. From the final four articles, two measured changes through dental casts and two assessed changes through radiographs (one through lateral cephalometric radiographs and one through posteroanterior radiographs). Similar maxillary molar and cuspid expansion could be found in adolescents and young adults. Significantly less indirect mandibular molar and cuspid expansion was attained in young adults compared with adolescents. A significant overall gain in the maxillary and mandibular arch perimeter was found in adolescents. More transverse dental arch changes were found after puberty as compared with before, but the difference may not be clinically significant. No anteroposterior dental changes were found on lateral cephalometric radiographs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".