CBCT Comparison of Dentoskeletal Effects of Haas-Type and Hyrax-Type Expanders Using Deciduous Teeth as Anchorage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the three-dimensional dentoskeletal effects of Haas-type and Hyrax-type expanders using primary teeth as anchorage for rapid palatal expansion (RPE). Thirty-four subjects in mixed dentition were divided according to their expander’s type: Hyrax (n = 16; 6F, 10M; mean age 8 ± 3 years) or Haas (n = 18; 14F, 4M; mean age 8 ± 2 years). Each patient underwent CBCTs before (T0) and after RPE (T1). Dentoskeletal changes were collected. A paired sample t-test and independent t-test were used to compare each variable within the same group and between groups, respectively, with a 5% significance. The Hyrax group showed an increase in all dentoskeletal parameters; skeletal expansion was significantly increased anteriorly (1.76 mm) and posteriorly (1.93 mm). The greatest dental expansion was observed in the anchorage unit (6.47 mm), about twice as much as permanent molars (3.42 mm). The same statistical significance of Haas group measurements was observed; anteriorly skeletal expansion (2.97 mm) was greater than posteriorly (1.93 mm) and dental expansion was greater on anchored teeth (6.80 mm) than non-anchored teeth (4.57 mm). No statistical significance was observed between Hyrax and Hass groups. CBCT analysis showed that, in RPE, the dental expansion was greater than skeletal expansion. No significant or clinical changes were observed between Hyrax and Haas appliances anchored to primary teeth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".