MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191446602 · doi:10.1111/ocr.12527

Modelling and evaluating periodontal ligament mechanical behaviour and properties: A scoping review of current approaches and limitations

2021· review· en· W3191446602 on OpenAlexafffund
Enaiyat Ghani Ovy, Dan L. Romanyk, Carlos Flores‐Mir, Lindsey Westover

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthodontics and Craniofacial Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeriodontal fiberComputer scienceSystematic reviewScopusWeb of scienceMEDLINEData scienceDentistryMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review is intended to synthesize the techniques proposed to model the tooth-periodontal ligament-bone complex (TPBC), while also evaluating the suggested periodontal ligament (PDL) material properties. It is concentrated on the recent advancements on the PDL and TPBC models, while identifying the advantages and limitations of the proposed approaches. Systematic searches were conducted up to December 2020 for articles that proposed PDL models to assess orthodontic tooth movement in Compendex, Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and Scopus databases. Although there have been many studies focused on the evaluation of PDL material properties through numerous modelling approaches, only a handful of approaches have been identified to investigate the interface properties of the PDL as a complete dynamical system (TPBC models). Past reviews on the analytical and experimental determination of the PDL properties already show a concerning range in reported output values-some nearly six orders of magnitude in difference-that strongly suggested the need for further investigation. Surprisingly, it has not yet been possible to determine a narrower range of values for the PDL material properties. Moreover, very few scientific approaches address the TPBC as an integrated complex system model. In consequence, current methods for capturing the PDL material behaviour in a clinical setting are limited and inconclusive. This synthesis encourages more systematic, pragmatic and phenomenological research in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.665
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthodontics and Craniofacial ResearchSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207