Correlation between maxillary cuspid impaction with available space and anomalies of maxillary lateral incisors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Association of cuspid impaction with adjacent lateral incisor anomalies is under controversy. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between maxillary cuspid impaction with dental anomalies. Material and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, the material consisted of pretreatment dental records of 102 patients with at least one palatally or buccally displaced impacted permanent cuspid (palatal and buccal impaction groups). They were matched with a comparison control group of 102 patients having normally erupted maxillary cuspids. Available space, mesiodistal dimensions of teeth, and morphologic parameters of lateral incisors were measured using the digital caliper. Comparison of mean values of lateral incisors anomalies and severity of crowding between different groups were performed using the one-way ANOVA test, and the analysis of associations between position of the impaction and anomaly of the lateral incisors and severity of crowding was performed using the Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the arch length–tooth size discrepancy between the cuspid impaction groups and control group. The impaction group (buccal or palatal) presented statistically significant differences in terms of anomalies of maxillary lateral incisor compared to the control group. Peg-shaped lateral incisor was related to buccal cuspid impaction and microdontia had relationship with palatal cuspid impaction. Conclusion: There is the relationship between cuspid impaction and adjacent lateral incisor abnormality, but no difference was observed between buccal and palatal cuspid impactions. Crowding revealed no relationship with cuspid impaction (buccal or palatal) in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".