Effects of interproximal enamel reduction techniques used for orthodontics: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to determine the effects of the interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) techniques used in orthodontics. Six databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, ScienceDirect and Clinical Trials. Grey literature was sourced from Google Scholar. The risk of bias was assessed by Risk of Bias 2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Robins-I depending on the design of the evaluated study. Additionally, the quality of the included studies was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. This systematic review included randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that reported the effects of IPR for orthodontic purposes on the teeth and periodontium. Case reports, and in vitro and in vivo studies were excluded. Eight clinical studies match the eligibility criteria. As a result, no demineralization of the enamel, no increase in caries incidence, no periodontal changes or dental sensitivity was found after IPR. Also, considering the duration of orthodontic treatment, IPR resulted in a quicker technique than dental extractions. At the risk-of-bias assessment, all observational studies showed low risk, the non-randomized clinical trial had a critical bias, and all randomized clinical trials exhibited some concerns. The overall quality of the studies was found to be between low and very low. After the analysis of the data from included studies, it was concluded that the IPR procedures could be useful to treat dental crowding in orthodontic clinical practice without negative effects. However, more randomized controlled clinical trials with a longer follow-up time and high-quality studies are required to generate robust statements.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".