A systematic review of the association between appliance-induced labial movement of mandibular incisors and gingival recession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if an association exists between appliance-induced labial movement of mandibular incisors and gingival recession. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies with the terms: 'incisor', 'incisor proclination', 'tooth movement', 'orthodontic tooth movement', 'gingival recession' and 'orthodontic appliance'. The original articles and abstracts that met the initial inclusion criteria were retrieved, and their references hand searched for possible articles missed by the database searches. Inclusion criteria included human studies that suggested a link between labial movement of lower incisors produced by orthodontic treatment and gingival recession. Exclusion criteria included significant intrusion or extrusion of the mandibular incisors, periodontal disease, subjects taking medication that affects gingival health and subjects with systematic diseases. RESULTS: Seven articles fulfilled the selection criteria. Gingival recession after labial movement of lower incisors was assessed on dental casts, intra-oral slides, lateral cephalograms and gingival examination. The articles were analysed to determine the impact of their treatment methodology on the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No association between appliance-induced labial movement of mandibular incisors and gingival recession was found. Factors that may lead to gingival recession after orthodontic tipping and/or translation movement were identified as a reduced thickness of the free gingival margin, a narrow mandibular symphysis, inadequate plaque control and aggressive tooth brushing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".