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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".