Prospective Assessment of Maximum Protrusion in Patients Wearing a Mandibular Advancement Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JDSMStudy Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep-related disorder with high prevalence in our society.The gold standard for the treatment of sleep apnea is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).Given the low adherence rate of patients on CPAP treatment, interest has turned toward dental appliances, commonly called mandibular advancement devices (MAD).The aim of this study was to determine whether patients' maximum protrusion could be increased after wearing a MAD for 3 months, such that patients with weak protrusion (who could at first be withdrawn from treatment) could be eligible for this treatment.Methods: The experimental group included 30 patients in whom OSA was diagnosed by polysomnography.Patients were matched with 30 healthy control patients without OSA.The experimental group wore a MAD for 90 days whereas the control group received no treatment.Both groups underwent two assessments of mandibular borderline movements (protrusion, maximum opening, and left and right lateral movement) at baseline and after 90 days with computerized mandibular scanning.Results: Results showed that wearing the MAD did not cause greater changes in mandibular movements compared to controls.However, in the MAD group, maximum opening decreased, lateral movement increased, and maximum protrusion increased.Patients with weak maximum protrusion at baseline showed increased maximum protrusion.Conclusions: Further studies are needed to assess changes in maximum protrusion in patients with weak maximum protrusion.Nevertheless, the findings provide a deeper understanding of the effects of MAD wear on jaw movements, and indicate the potential of the MAD as an effective therapy for patients with maximum protrusion less than 5 mm.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".