Effect of molar intrusion with temporary anchorage devices in patients with anterior open bite: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to assess the effect of molar intrusion with temporary anchorage devices on the vertical facial morphology and mandibular rotation during open bite treatment in the permanent dentition. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the published data in seven electronic databases up to September 2015. We considered studies for inclusion if they were examining the effects of posterior teeth intrusion on the vertical facial morphology with open bite malocclusion in the permanent dentition. Study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data-extraction were performed in duplicate. Meta-analysis was not possible due to dissimilarity and heterogeneity among the included studies. RESULTS: Out of the 42 articles that met the initial eligibility criteria, 12 studies were finally selected. Low level of scientific evidence was identified after risk of bias assessment of the included studies with no relevant randomized controlled trial performed. Out of the 12 selected studies, five studies used miniplates and seven studies used miniscrews. Mandibular counterclockwise rotation was found to be between 2.3° and 3.9° in six studies (as sassed by mandibular plane angle, between MeGo or GoGn and SN or FH plane) while it was less than 2° in the remaining studies. CONCLUSIONS: Current weak evidence suggests that molar intrusion with temporary anchorage devices may cause mandibular counterclockwise autorotation. Future well-conducted and clearly reported multicenter randomized controlled trials that include a non-treatment control group are needed to make robust recommendations regarding the amount of mandibular rotation during open bite treatments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".