No confidence that success rates of self-drilling and self-tapping insertion techniques of orthodontic mini-implants are similar
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and SIGLE.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials(RCTs), clinical controlled trials (CCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the success/failure rates of self-drilling and self-tapping mini-screws for orthodontic anchorage were considered.Data extraction and synthesisData was abstracted and assessed for quality by two reviewers independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality. Meta-analyses with subgroup analysis of different study designs, follow-up periods, participant age and immediate loading or delayed loading were conducted.ResultsThree CCTs and three cohort studies were included. These were assessed to be of high quality. Meta-analysis (six studies) showed no difference in success rates between the two types of screws; odds ratio (OR) = 0.90 (95%CI; 0.52-1.53). Meta-analysis (two studies) found no difference in the rate of root contact between the two systems; OR = 0.96 (95% CI; 0.53-1.71).ConclusionsCurrently available clinical evidence suggests that the success rates of self-tapping and self-drilling miniscrews are similar. Determination of the position and direction of placement should be more precise when self-drilling miniscrews are used in sites with narrow root proximity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it