Maxillary molar distalization with miniscrew-supported appliances in Class II malocclusion: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quantitative effects of miniscrew supported appliances for maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, and key journals and review articles. The date of the last search was January 30, 2017. Methodological quality of the retrospective studies was graded by means of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, developed for the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) and prospective studies by means of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: In total, 298 studies were identified for screening, and 14 studies were eligible. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies rated all of the four included retrospective studies as moderate. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale rated seven studies as high quality and three studies as low quality. The mean molar distalization values varied from 1.8 mm to 6.4 mm. Mean distal tipping of molars varied from 1.65° to 11.3°. The mean distal movement of premolars and incisors varied from 1.75 mm to 5.4 mm and 0.1 mm to 2.7 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Miniscrew-supported appliances are effective in molar distalization with distal movement of premolars with minimal anchorage loss and distal tipping of the molar teeth.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".