Effectiveness of removable appliances with temperature sensors in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Patient compliance during orthodontic treatment is one of the factors that most affects success in the final result. The use of removable appliances is frequent at an early age and the monitoring of its use is essential to assess the collaboration of the patient. The aim of this study was to establish the effectiveness of microsensors included in removable appliances during orthodontic treatment or in the retention phase to enable a reliable and individualized follow-up of the patient. SEARCH METHODS: The article search was carried out in various electronic databases and journals without any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies using microsensors into removable appliances were selected with the key selection criterion of a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The quality of the studies included was evaluated using the Cochrane scale for the randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for control-case, cohort, and transversal studies. The mean of the differences with a 95% confidence interval was expressed for the continuous data. RESULTS: Twenty-nine full-text articles were analysed and included in the qualitative synthesis. In general, the mean daily wear time of removable appliances measured objectively was less than the time that the professional had predetermined. CONCLUSIONS: The use of microsensors as an objective measurement method enhances communication and boosts confidence in the orthodontist-patient relationship. More random clinical studies with temperature sensors are needed to establish to what extent they influence the orthodontic outcome. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019120525).
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".