Comparison of Skeletal and Dental Changes Obtained from a Tooth-Borne Maxillary Expansion Appliance Compared to the Damon System Assessed through a Digital Volumetric Imaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare dental and skeletal changes associated with the Damon and Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) expansion using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Eighty-two patients, from The University of Alberta Orthodontic Clinic, were randomly allocated to either Group A or B. Patients in Group A received orthodontic treatment using the Damon brackets. Patients in Group B received treatment using the Hyrax (a type of RME) appliance. CBCT images were taken two times (baseline and after expansion). The AVIZO software was used to locate 18 landmarks (dental and skeletal) on sagittal, axial, and coronal slices of CBCT images. Comparison between two groups showed that transverse movement of maxillary first molars and premolars was much greater in the Hyrax group. The lateral movements of posterior teeth were associated with buccal tipping of crowns. No clinically significant difference in the vertical or anteroposterior direction between the two groups was noted. Alveolar bone next to root apex of maxillary first premolar and molar teeth showed clinically significant lateral movement in the Hyrax group only. The comparison between two groups showed significantly greater transverse expansion of the first molar and first premolars with buccal tipping in the RME group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".