Eruption rates of lower second premolars at different development stages evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the eruption rates of lower second premolars (LPm2) at different developmental stages using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, 31 individuals (9.77 ± 1.25 years) had their LPm2 scored according to the Demirjian method, and afterwards they were split into three groups according to developmental stage, as follows: D = complete-formed crowns; E = root length less than crown height; and F = root length greater than or equal to crown height. Linear distances from the LPm2 crown tip to the anatomical reference line (ARL) and to the occlusal plane line (OPL) were measured in paired CBCT scans (T1, T2), taken with an average interval of 8.6 months between them. Eruption rates (mm/y) were calculated and then compared between groups. RESULTS: Eruption rates were greater for LPm2 at stage F than at stages D or E (P < .01) regardless of whether they were measured from the ARL (D = 2.84 mm/y; E = 2.55 mm/y; F = 5.38 mm/y) or from the OPL (D = 1.82 mm/y; E = 2.02 mm/y; F = 5.26 mm/y). Eruption rates evaluated from the ARL and the OPL had no statistically significant differences (P = .052), and a positive correlation (r = .79, P < .001) between them was observed. CONCLUSIONS: LPm2 at Demirjian stage F showed greater eruption rates than at stages D or E, regardless of whether rates were measured from the ARL or the OPL. Faster eruption is expected for LPm2 at stage F. Evaluation of the LPm2's developmental stage using CBCT can aid in clinical decision making regarding the correct timing for intervention.
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".