Short- and long-term evaluation of mandibular dental arch dimensional changes in patients treated with a lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate short- and long-term mandibular dental arch changes in patients treated with a lip bumper during the mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances, compared with a matched control sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental casts and lateral cephalograms obtained from 31 consecutively treated patients before (T0) and after (T1) lip bumper, after fixed appliances (T2), and a minimum of 3 years after fixed appliances (T3) were analyzed. The control group was matched as closely as possible. Arch width, arch perimeter, arch length, and incisor proclination were evaluated. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze changes in measurements over all four time points between treatment and control groups. RESULTS: Arch widths and crowding were always significantly different except at T2-T1. At T1-T0, only crowding decreased 3.2 mm while intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths increased by 3.8, 3.3, and 3.9 mm, respectively. Changes at T3-T2 showed a significant decrease of 2.1 mm for crowding and an increase of 3.5, 2.9, 2.7, and 0.8 mm for intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths and arch perimeter, respectively. Finally, at T3-T0, the reduction in crowding of 5.03 mm was significant and clinically important in the treated group. The differences between intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths were also significant (2.1, 3.8, and 3.6 mm, respectively). All those differences favored the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular dental arch dimensions were significantly changed after lip bumper treatment. At follow-up, all arch widths were slightly decreased, generating an increase of 0.4 mm in crowding, considered clinically irrelevant. Overall changes remained stable after an average 6.3-year follow-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".