Effectiveness of Phase I Orthodontic Treatment in an Undergraduate Teaching Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this retrospective study, the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of Phase I (early) orthodontic treatment provided in an undergraduate teaching clinic. Pre-treatment and post-treatment casts of ninety-three patients were analyzed. All patients selected for Phase I orthodontic treatment had Class I skeletal relationships and did not require complex orthodontic treatment such as growth modification or treatment of occlusions with missing or impacted teeth. The mean age of patients who received Phase I orthodontic treatment was 9.9 years. The mean initial PAR score for the sample was 29.70 +/-9.84. The mean reduction in PAR score was 14.9 points corresponding to a 50.2 percent decrease in the PAR score following Phase I orthodontic treatment. Seventy-three percent of the patients experienced at least a 30 percent reduction in their PAR score following Phase I (early) orthodontic treatment. The mean cost of $381.00 for the Phase I orthodontic treatment was found to be influenced by the length of treatment, type of Phase I treatment provided, age at start of treatment, and percentage reduction in PAR score. The greatest success rate for the Phase I orthodontic treatment occurred with either fixed or a combination of fixed and removable appliances. Over half of the patients recommended for Phase I orthodontic treatment in the undergraduate dental clinic were successfully treated and did not require Phase II treatment. For them, there was both a treatment and a financial benefit to the Phase I orthodontic treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".