Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter reviews T-Scan use in orthodontics from diagnosis to case finishing, and then in retention, while defining normal T-Scan recording parameters for orthodontically-treated subjects versus untreated subjects. T-Scan use in the case-finishing process is also described, which compensates for changes in the occlusion that occur during “post-orthodontic settling,” as teeth move freely within the periodontium to find an equilibrium position when the orthodontic appliances have been removed. T-Scan implementation is necessary because, often, despite there being a post treatment, visually “perfect” angle's Class I relationship established with the orthodontic treatment, ideal occlusal contacts do not result solely from tooth movement. Creating simultaneous and equal force occlusal contacts following fixed appliance removal can be accomplished using T-Scan data to optimize the end-result occlusal contact pattern. The T-Scan software's force distribution and timing indicators (the two- and three-dimensional force views, force percentage per tooth and arch half, the center of force trajectory and icon, the occlusion time [OT], and the disclusion time [DT]), all aid the Orthodontist in obtaining an ideal occlusal force distribution during case-finishing. Fortunately, most orthodontic cases remain asymptomatic during and after tooth movement. However, an occlusal force imbalance or patient discomfort may occur along with the malocclusion that needs orthodontic treatment. Symptomatic cases require special documentation at the baseline, and careful monitoring throughout the entire orthodontic process. The clinical use of T-Scan in these “fragile” cases of patient muscle in-coordination, mandibular deviation, atypical pain, and/or TMJ idiopathic arthritis, are illustrated by several case reports. The presented clinical examples highlight combining T-Scan data recorded during case diagnosis, tooth movement, and in case finishing, with patients that underwent lingual orthodontics and orthognathic surgery, orthodontic treatment using clear aligners, or conventional fixed treatment with a camouflage treatment plan, which require special occlusal finishing (when premolars are extracted in only one arch).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".