MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107716649 · doi:10.34172/jlms.2020.69

Efficacy of Er,Cr Laser incision Corticotomy in Rapid Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

2020· article· en· W3107716649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Majid Mahmoudzadeh, Banafshe Poormoradi, Sara Alijani, Maryam Farhadian, Azadeh Kazemisaleh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of lasers in medical sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCorticotomyMaxillary canineDentistryPremolarMolarRandomized controlled trialOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of lasercision corticotomy for the acceleration of the canine movement. Our secondary objectives were assessing the canine rotation, the rate of anchorage control, the level of pain, and the gingival index (GI).Methods: Twelve orthodontic patients (9 females and 3 males) referring to the School of Dentistry and one dental clinic from May 2019 to September 2019 participated in this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. The allocation of the test and control sides was performed by flipping a coin. The mean age of patients was 18.91±3.87 years (range 15-30 years). The treatment plan included maxillary first premolar extraction. Following the initial leveling and alignment phase, an initial impression was made. Corticotomy was carried out with the erbium, chromium-doped yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser (3.5 W, 30 Hz, 40% air, 80% water) in one maxillary quadrant (the laser side). Canine retraction was immediately initiated following surgery using nickel-titanium closed-coil springs with 150 g force. The impression was repeated 1 month after the onset of retraction. The casts were scanned, and the distance between the canine cusp tip and the rugae line was measured to quantify the amount of anteroposterior canine movement. The molar anchorage control was also evaluated by measuring the distance between the mesial contact of the permanent first molar and the rugae line. Gingival health was evaluated using the GI. The modified McGill pain questionnaire was used to assess the level of patients’ pain.Results: Lasercision corticotomy accelerated canine retraction with no adverse effect on gingival health. Anchorage loss in the posterior teeth and pain scores were not significantly different between the control and laser sides.Conclusion: Laser corticotomy can effectively accelerate canine retraction with no complications or discomfort for the 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of lasers in medical sciencesSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207