MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981674248

Ectopic Eruption of the Permanent Maxillary First Molar: Predictive Factors for Irreversible Outcome.

2017· article· en· W2981674248 on OpenAlexaff
Basma Dabbagh, Michael Sigal, Bryan Tompson, K.C. Titley, Paul Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMount Sinai HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImpactionMolarDentistryOrthodonticsPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of self-correction and predictive factors for irreversible outcome of mesial ectopic eruption of permanent maxillary first molars (EE), in a sample population where no interceptive treatment was initiated. METHODS: Charts of patients diagnosed with EE were reviewed, and radiographs were analyzed for predictive factors reported in the literature. RESULTS: Sixty-five EE were included in the study; 46 (71 percent) self-corrected, of which one-third occurred after age nine years. Space loss, with an average of approximately three mm, occurred in 18 EE (28 percent). Increased magnitude of impaction, degree of resorption of the primary second molar, severe lock, and bilateral occurrence were positively correlated with irreversible EE. Multiple regression analysis was positive for increased magnitude of impaction when adjusted for gender and bilateral occurrence. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous self-correction occurred in 71 percent of permanent maxillary first molars with ectopic eruption; one third of self-corrections occurred after nine years of age. Delaying treatment of ectopic eruption of permanent maxillary first molars may be a viable option when the outcome is uncertain. Increased magnitude of impaction was the most reliable predictor associated with irreversible outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207