Sphenoid bone changes in rapid maxillary expansion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is used to expand the maxilla and increase arch perimeter; yet, there are few reports on its effects on the sphenoid bone. With cone-beam computed topography (CBCT), it is possible to visualize sphenoid bone changes. The purpose of this study was to investigate sphenoid bone changes observed in conjunction with RME treatments, using CBCT. METHODS: Sixty patients (34 women and 26 men, aged 11-17 years) underwent RME as part of their orthodontic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a tooth-anchored group, a bone-anchored group, or a control group. Initial CBCT scans were performed preceding the RME treatment (T1) and again directly after the completion of expansion (T2). Statistical analysis included ANOVA, descriptive statistics, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The reliability of the landmark location was at least 0.783, and the largest ICC mean measurement error was 2.32 mm. With regard to distances, the largest change was 0.78 mm, which was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Statistical significance was established in patient groups of the same sex and treatment type for the following distance measurements: right anterior lateral pterygoid plate to the right edge of the hypophyseal fossa (d2), anterior distance between the medial pterygoid plates (d4), and anterior distance between the left medial and lateral plates (d8). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there were no clinically significant changes in the sphenoid bone due to RME treatments regardless of sex or treatment type.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".