Influence of maxillary posterior discrepancy on upper molar vertical position and facial vertical dimensions in subjects with or without skeletal open bite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of maxillary posterior discrepancy on upper molar vertical position and dentofacial vertical dimensions in individuals with or without skeletal open bite (SOB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of 139 young adults were examined. The sample was divided into eight groups categorized according to their sagittal and vertical skeletal facial growth pattern and maxillary posterior discrepancy (present or absent). Upper molar vertical position, overbite, lower anterior facial height and facial height ratio were measured. Independent t-test was performed to determine differences between the groups considering maxillary posterior discrepancy. Principal component analysis and MANCOVA test were also used. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found comparing the molar vertical position according to maxillary posterior discrepancy for the SOB Class I group or the group with adequate overbite. Significant differences were found in SOB Class II and Class III groups. In addition, an increased molar vertical position was found in the group without posterior discrepancy. LIMITATIONS: Some variables closely related with the individual's intrinsic craniofacial development that could influence the evaluated vertical measurements were not considered. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall maxillary posterior discrepancy does not appear to have a clear impact on upper molar vertical position or facial vertical dimensions. Only the SOB Class III group without posterior discrepancy had a significant increased upper molar vertical position.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".