Failure rates of miniscrews inserted in the maxillary tuberosity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anchorage conservation in orthodontics has always been a challenge. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this current study was to find out the failure rate of miniscrews inserted in the maxillary tuberosity (MT) region. METHODS: This pilot study consisted of 40 patients (23 female, 17 male; mean age = 20.1±8.9 years) that had received 60 MT miniscrews for orthodontic treatment. Clinical notes and pictures were used to find out the primary outcome of miniscrew failure. Independent failure factors were also investigated. Logistic regression analysis was done for predictor's relation with MT miniscrews failure. RESULTS: There was no significant correlation in failure rate according to various predictor variables, except for miniscrews installed by lesser experienced operators, which showed significantly more failure. The odds ratio for miniscrew failure placed by inexperienced operators was 4.16. CONCLUSION: A 26.3% failure rate of mini-implants inserted in the MT region was observed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".