Predictors of postretention stability of mandibular dental arch dimensions in patients treated with a lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify which dental and/or cephalometric variables were predictors of postretention mandibular dental arch stability in patients who underwent treatment with transpalatal arch and lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by full fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were divided into stable and relapse groups based on the postretention presence or absence of relapse. Intercuspid, interpremolar, and intermolar widths; arch length and perimeter; crowding; and lower incisor proclination were evaluated before treatment (T0), after lip bumper treatment (T1), after fixed appliance treatment (T2), and a minimum of 3 years after removal of the full fixed appliance (T3). Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changes between T0 and T1, as predictive variables, on the occurrence of relapse at T3. RESULTS: The model explained 53.5 % of the variance in treatment stability and correctly classified 80.6 % of the sample. Of the seven prediction variables, intermolar and interpremolar changes between T0 and T1 (P = .024 and P = .034, respectively) were statistically significant. For every millimeter of increase in intermolar and interpremolar widths there was a 1.52 and 2.70 times increase, respectively, in the odds of having stability. There was also weak evidence for the effect of sex (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The best predictors of an average 4-year postretention mandibular dental arch stability after treatment with a lip bumper followed by full fixed appliances were intermolar and interpremolar width increases during lip bumper therapy. The amount of relapse in this crowding could be considered clinically irrelevant.
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".