Evaluation of the changes of orbital cavity volume and shape after tooth-borne and bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare volumetric and shape changes of the orbital cavity in patients treated with tooth-borne (TB) and bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME). STUDY DESIGN: Forty adolescents with bilateral maxillary cross-bite received tooth-borne (TB group = 20; mean age 14.27 ± 1.36 years) or bone-borne (BB group = 20; mean age of 14.62 ± 1.45 years) maxillary expander. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) were taken before treatment (T1) and 6-month after the expander activation (T2). Volumetric and shape changes of orbital cavities were detected by referring to a specific 3D digital technology involving deviation analysis of T1/T2 CBCT-derived models of pulp chamber. Student's t tests were used to 1) compare T1 and T2 volumes of orbital cavities in TB and BB groups, 2) compare volumetric changes and the percentage of matching of 3D orbital models (T1-T2) between the two groups. RESULTS: ) (p < 0.0001). This increment were significant between the two groups (p < 0.05) while no differences were found in the percentage of matching of T1/T2 orbital 3D models (p > 0.05). The areas of greater changes were detected in the proximity of the frontozygomatic and frontomaxillary sutures. CONCLUSION: TB-RME and BB-RME would not seem to considerably affect the anatomy or the volume of the orbital cavity in adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".