Lateral incisor root resorption and active orthodontic treatment in the early mixed dentition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the presence of root resorption in the lateral incisor after active orthodontic treatment in the early mixed dentition. METHODS: Twenty-six children treated at the Children's Clinic of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario were examined radiographically for lateral incisors root resorption before and after early active treatment to align upper incisors (2 x 4 appliance). In addition, canine inclinations to the midline and to the long axis of the lateral incisor as well as the most medial position of the canine crown were measured as potential risk factors for root resorption. RESULTS: 8% (4) of the lateral incisors exhibited root resorption and the mean crown-to-root ratio of these teeth was significantly higher than that for lateral incisors not exhibiting root resorption. Similarly, mean canine inclinations to the midline and to the long axis of the lateral incisor were also significantly higher for the root resorption group. No association could be found between the most medial position of the canine crown and root resorption in the lateral incisor. CONCLUSION: This study showed that active orthodontic treatment in the early mixed dentition does not increase the risk for root resorption in the lateral incisors as long as the clinician takes into consideration canine inclinations and their potential effect on root resorption. Limitations inherent to radiographic assessment are acknowledged.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".