Effects of a Titratable Oral Appliance on Supine Airway Size in Awake Non-Apneic Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To define morphological changes in the upper airway and its surrounding structures after the insertion of a titratable mandibular repositioner. DESIGN: Ten non-apneic adult males participated in this study. A set of supine lateral cephalograms was taken for each subject at the end of expiration with a titratable oral appliance in place in four mandibular positions: most retruded (RP), maximum protrusion (MAX), 33% of MAX (MAX33), and 67% of MAX (MAX67). Changes in the anteroposterior width of the upper airway, positions of the hyoid bone and the third cervical vertebra were compared between the four mandibular positions. An ANOVA was used to test for statistical significance. SETTING: N/A. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: N/A. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The anteroposterior width of the velopharynx significantly increased when the mandible was advanced from RP to MAX67 and MAX. However, there were no significant changes in the anteroposterior width of the oropharynx. Significant forward displacement of the hyoid bone and third cervical vertebra together with the mandible was found in MAX67 and MAX compared to RP. CONCLUSION: Especially in MAX67 and MAX, the titratable oral appliance significantly enlarges upper airway size in the velopharynx and results in a forward displacement of the hyoid bone and the third cervical vertebra.
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) | 0.000 | 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".