Evaluation of masticatory muscle activity in patients with unilateral posterior crossbite before and after rapid maxillary expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The relationship between unilateral posterior crossbite (UPCB) and the possible asymmetric activation of the jaw muscles in children is still under debate. This study aimed at evaluating the jaw muscle activity of children with UPCB before and after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) by means of surface electromyography and a standardized sampling protocol. Subjects and methods: Twenty-nine children with UPCB (UPCB-group, mean age 9.6 ± 1.6 years) and 40 UPCB-free controls (Control-group, 10.5 ± 1.1) were recruited. The activity of the left and right anterior temporalis (AT) and superficial masseter muscles (MM) was recorded during maximum voluntary clenching and a chewing task (T0). In the UPCB-group, data were collected, also, after the correction of the UPCB with RME (T1) and 6 months later (T2), without any further treatment. Electromyographic indices comparing the activity of paired muscle were computed via software to estimate the extent of asymmetric AT and MM activity. Paired and unpaired t-test or Wilcoxon-signed rank and Mann-Whitney U test, ANOVA or Friedman test and chi-squared test were used in the statistical analysis. Results: Both groups presented with asymmetric activity of the muscles, which did not differ between groups (T0, all P > 0.05). The treatment determined a decrease in muscular activity (T1, P = 0.040), and a more asymmetric pattern of muscle activation during chewing (T1, P = 0.040), which returned similar to baseline values at T2 (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: UPCB does not contribute to an asymmetric activation of AT and MM during functional tasks. The treatment of UPCB by RME did not determine a more symmetric activity of the assessed muscles.
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 | 0.005 | 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".