Comparison of the Condyle Sagittal Position of Class I and Class II Division 2 in Orthodontic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To compare the condyle sagittal position of class I and class II division 2 in orthodontic patients.Materials and methods: Fifty orthodontic cases (30 females and 20 males; 12-31 years) from the records of an Orthodontic Graduate Program were collected.Such cases presented cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as part of their initial diagnostic examinations.The study sample constituted two groups, i.e. class I and class II division 2 groups.A previously calibrated examiner performed the measurements of the images, representing the distance between the condyle and the articular surface of the glenoid fossa, both anteriorly (anterior disk space-ADS) and posteriorly (posterior disk space-PDS).Descriptive statistics were performed.Data were normally distributed, and parametric tests were used.Paired sample test was used to identify differences between the right and the left joints.Differences between class I and class II/2 groups were tested using independent t test.All statistical tests were interpreted at 5% significance level.Results: When the study groups were compared in relation to the dimensions observed for the right and the left ADS and PDS, no significant differences were detected.This study also calculated the differences between right and left disk spaces within the groups, and the differences were not significant for both class I and class II/2 groups.Conclusion: The results demonstrated, after the performance of a CBCT comparative analysis, that there is no significant difference between class II/2 and class I orthodontic patients in relation to the condyle sagittal position. Clinical significance:The results collected here refute the expectation of spontaneous mandibular anterior repositioning after correcting the overbite in class II/2 patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".