Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Condyle-Glenoid Fossa Complex Following Treatment with Herbst Appliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present retrospective observational study was to compare the effects of treatment with Herbst appliance and fixed therapy with elastics on the condyle and glenoid fossa complex. Thirty patients aged between twelve and sixteen years with skeletal Class II malocclusion who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study: fifteen patients treated with Herbst appliance (Group 1), and fifteen patients treated with orthodontic camouflage using MBT prescription (MBTTM Versatile+ Appliance System) (Group 2). For Group 2, patients had CBCT scans taken before treatment either after Herbst appliance removal or at the end of treatment. CBCT scans were evaluated for changes in condyle-glenoid fossa complex using the In Vivo Dental 5.1 software. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. On inter-group comparison, the Herbst group showed statistically significant increases in the condylar height of 1.35 mm (p ≤ 0.001) on the right and 1.21 mm (p ≤ 0.01) on the left side, and a condylar volume of 111.03 mm3 (p ≤ 0.01) on the right and 127.80 mm3 (p ≤ 0.001) on the left side. The Herbst group showed anterior remodelling on the postero-superior aspect of glenoid fossa. Herbst appliance treatment induced growth at the condylar head and anterior remodelling of glenoid fossa, thereby improving the maxilla-mandibular relationship in growing skeletal Class II patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".