Incisor and molar overjet, arch contraction, and molar relationship in the mixed dentition in repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: A qualitative and quantitative appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mixed dentition incisor and molar overjet, severity of contraction of the dental arch, and the sagittal molar relationship on the cleft side vs the noncleft side in children with repaired complete unilateral cleft of the lip and palate (UCLP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthodontic records taken prior to orthodontic preparation for alveolar bone grafting were screened to select study casts from patients with nonsyndromic repaired complete UCLP who did not have mandibular skeletal or dental asymmetry. The study sample comprised dental casts from 74 children aged 8.9 ± 1 years. Standardized digital photographs were acquired at 1:1 magnification. A coordinate system was developed using digital image-processing software (Photoshop CS4 and Adobe Illustrator). Incisor and molar overjet, Angle's classification, and arch contraction were recorded. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and kappa statistics were used to compare the cleft and noncleft sides. RESULTS: A negative overjet of -1 to -5 mm was often present at the incisors, with greater frequency and magnitude on the cleft side. Class II molar relation was more frequent on the cleft side (61.1%) than on the noncleft side (47.2%). Significantly greater contraction of the cleft side deciduous canine and deciduous first molar was noted, while the difference was very minor at the first permanent molar. CONCLUSIONS: Cleft side maxillary arch contraction was most severe in the deciduous canine and first deciduous molar region and progressively less severe in the posterior region of the arch. A greater frequency and severity of negative overjet and Class II molar relationship was seen on the cleft side.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".