Collum angle of the anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess and evaluate the collum angle (CA) of the anterior teeth of the permanent dentition. METHODS: A search in seven databases for articles that had measured the CA in sagittal malocclusions was conducted until November 30, 2021. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle Ottawa scale. CA measurements using Cone Beam Computed Tomography or lateral cephalograms were included. The CA data were summarized by random-effects inverse generic meta-analyses. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of the 17 selected articles revealed that four were rated as "very good," 12 as "good" and 1 as "satisfactory." CA was 4.7° (95% CI of 3.1 to 6.4) and 2.0° (95% CI of 0.1 to 3.9) greater in Class II division 2 and Class III malocclusions respectively, than in Class I malocclusion cases. CONCLUSION: Majority of the studies were rated as good or very good. Most studies evaluated the CA of the maxillary central incisors in Class II division 2 malocclusion. Studies assessing other maxillary anterior and mandibular anterior teeth are required. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Practice of esthetic dentistry for teeth with increased CA is of clinical importance since the angle would determine the longevity and esthetic/cosmetic success of the rehabilitation. Placement of dental implants in areas of missing teeth with increased collum angle leads to excessive stress between the fixture and abutment leading to gingival recession. Thus, knowledge about the collum angle of anterior teeth and its variations in sagittal malocclusions would enable precise treatment planning in the field of esthetic dentistry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".