Randomized comparison study on the effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the effectiveness of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers.Methods Sixty-eight patients who had received treatment with upper and lower fixed appliances were randomly assigned either a Hawley or a vacuum-formed retainer.Study models were fabricated for each patient on day of debond,6 months,and 12 months after debond.Four variables were measured,these were upper and lower intermolar widths,intercanine widths,arch length,and a modified Little's index of irregularity.Results For each of the variables under test and at each of the four time periods,there were no statistically significant differences(a =0.05) between each of the two retainers,vacuumformed and Hawley.Conclusion There is no statistical significant difference in the measured arch width,arch length,or Little's index over a 12-month period between Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers when worn full-time.Therefore other factors may be more important when deciding on the most appropriate form of retainer to be used.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".