An Insight into the Role of the Maxillary Labial Frenum in the Growth of the Maxilla: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The review attempts to provide synthesis of published studies evaluating the influence of an aberrant frenum attached close to the gingival margin or with inadequate width of attached gingiva on the growth of the maxilla. Methodology: This review was reported using the PRISMA checklist as a template. PubMed, EBSCO and Google scholar were searched for in earlier publications up to January 2019. In addition, reference lists of the included studies were hand searched. The eligibility criteria were listed out based on Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study type (PICOS) concept. Results: A total of 148 articles were found by database search strategies and 27 additional studies by hand search. Finally three cross sectional and one longitudinal study were selected based on the eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis was not justified. Risk of bias was assessed using AXIS tool for cross sectional studies and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for longitudinal study. Common weaknesses of the studies were failure to justify or calculate the sample size and insufficient statistical reporting. Conclusion: This review reveals that there is a need for methodologically standardized studies that will throw light on to the physiological importance of labial frenum in the growth of the nasomaxillary complex.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".