The Impact of Orthodontic Appliance on Body Weight Changes, Dietary Habits, and Self-Perceived Discomfort in Early Stages of Orthodontic Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess and compare the changes in body weight, dietary habits, and pain perception of patient’s undergoing orthodontic treatment at the initial stage.MATERIAL & METHODS: This was an observational prospective cohort study to assess patient’s changes in body weight, dietary habits, and pain perception undergoing orthodontic treatment at the initial stage. Thirty patients who received orthodontic treatment “for the first time” and those who will get comprehensive orthodontic treatment within the age group of 18-30 years old including both genders were included in the study. The weight as well as dietary habits of patients were measured at the initial visit, “prior reserving of any the orthodontic treatment” as (T0). Re-evaluation of patient’s weight, dietary habits, and pain perception were re-assessed on the next visit” after fixed orthodontic appliance bonding” as (T1) one month later. The pain, discomfort, and dietary habits changes were evaluated using a validated questionnaire.RESULTS: The mean (SD) patient weight at first and second visit of orthodontic treatment was 67.43 (24.42) and 64.98 (22.7) kg respectively. The difference in the patient weight between first and second visit was statistically significant. Patients with discomfort and patients who used medication to relieve pain were reported to have more weight loss.CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the initial loss of weight, pain and discomfort among patients who undergo orthodontic treatments. The findings of this study are of importance among the orthodontic centres and practitioners highlighting the importance of their guidance in structured diet planning and advice after treatment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".