Retreatment of an orthognathic camouflaged case by total lower arch mesialization using temporary anchorage device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular tooth extractions for camouflage treatments in borderline Class III patients may end up with unpleasing esthetic results which may lead the patient seeking further complicated retreatments. In this case report, we presented a patient's retreatment with a combined orthodontic and orthognathic surgery treatment plan. The treatment strategy involved an innovative temporary anchorage device (TAD)-based method for total mandibular arch mesialization instead of space reopening for first lower premolar replacement with implants. In the current case report, orthognathic management of a Class III adult female is discussed. The patient had a history of an esthetically unsuccessful previous camouflaged orthodontic treatment with two lower premolar extractions. She was prepared for orthognathic surgery using an innovative custom-made sliding jig based on miniscrews for total mandibular arch mesialization with the aim of dental arch decompensation. After gaining the optimal dental arch discrepancy, the patient had orthognathic surgery (maxillary advancement and mandibular setback and advancement genioplasty). Total mandibular dental arch mesialization with the aim of dental arch discrepancy preparation was successfully conducted using TADs. By means of the innovative miniscrew-anchored sliding jig, the patient's satisfactory esthetic and occlusal results were obtained in 22 months. With innovative application of the miniscrews, more practical and reasonable alternatives are available to replace conventional and complicated treatment plans such as space reopening for implants in patients with unsuccessful previous orthodontic therapies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".