Transverse dentoalveolar response of mandibular arch after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with tooth-borne and bone-borne appliances:
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare spontaneous expansion of mandibular posterior teeth between tooth-borne (TB) and bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 36 adolescents with bilateral maxillary crossbite receiving tooth-borne (average age: 14.4 ± 1.3 years) or bone-borne (average age: 14.7 ± 1.4 years) maxillary expansion. Cone beam computed tomography was acquired before expansion (T1) and after 6 months' retention (T2). Specific linear and angular measurements were performed in the coronal view to assess buccal inclinations and widths of mandibular posterior units. All data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: In both groups there was a significant increase in buccal-lingual inclination of mandibular posterior teeth ranging from 1.67° to 2.30° in the TB group and from 1.46° to 2.11° in BB group. Mandibular posterior widths showed an increase ranging from 0.80 mm to 1.33 mm in TB group and from 0.64 mm to 0.96 mm in the BB group. No differences between groups were found for linear or angular measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically significant gain of space in the mandibular arch should not be expected after RME.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it