Dentoskeletal effects produced by removable palatal crib, bonded spurs, and chincup therapy in growing children with anterior open bite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dentoskeletal effects of different anterior open bite treatment modalities in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cephalometric study assessed changes resulting from different treatment approaches on 77 growing children with anterior open bite. A control group (n = 30) was used for comparison. Lateral cephalograms were available before treatment and after 12 months. The sample was divided into four groups: removable palatal crib associated with a chincup (G1), bonded spurs associated with a chincup (G2), chincup (G3), and nontreated control (G4). Statistical comparisons among the four groups were performed on T1 and the treatment changes using analysis of variance with Tukey's post hoc tests. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes in skeletal variables were found among the groups, except for lower anterior face height (LAFH) increase in G1. Overall, effects in all of the treated groups were exclusively dentoalveolar. A larger overbite (OB) increase was observed in G1 and G2 when compared with G3 and G4. The maxillary incisors in G1 showed increased palatal tipping, retrusion, and more vertical dentoalveolar development as well as increased lingual tipping among mandibular incisors. There was less vertical development of maxillary and mandibular molars in G3. CONCLUSIONS: A removable palatal crib provided an improvement in OB (97.5%), followed by the bonded spurs (84.5%). Conversely, the chincup-only group did not have positive OB effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".