Permanent maxillary central incisor and first molar rotations in the mixed dentition in repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and their relationship with absence of teeth in their vicinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe qualitatively and quantitatively the directions and magnitudes of rotations of permanent maxillary central incisors and first molars in the mixed dentition in repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and study their associations with absence of teeth in their vicinity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental casts and orthodontic records taken prior to orthodontic preparation for alveolar bone grafting of 74 children with repaired UCLP (53 male, 21 female; aged 8.9 ± 1.0 years) were studied. Directions and magnitudes of permanent maxillary central incisor and first molar rotations were recorded. Tooth absence was confirmed from longitudinal radiographic records. Incisor and molar rotations were analyzed in relation to the absence of teeth in their vicinity. RESULTS: Distolabial rotation of the permanent maxillary central incisor was noted in 77.14% on the cleft side, while distopalatal rotation was noted in 82.19% on the noncleft side. Incisor rotation was greater when a permanent tooth was present distal to the cleft side central incisor, in the greater segment. The permanent maxillary first molar showed mesiopalatal rotation, which was greater on the cleft side and when there was absence of one or more teeth in the buccal segment. CONCLUSIONS: Presence and absence of teeth were associated with the severity of incisor and molar rotations in UCLP. Crowding of anterior teeth in the greater segment was associated with a greater magnitude of rotation of the cleft side permanent central incisor. Absence of one or more buccal segment teeth was associated with greater magnitude of rotation of the molar.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".