Is the quality of occlusal contacts comparable after aligner and fixed orthodontic therapy? A non-randomized cohort comparison using computerized occlusal analysis during 6 months of retention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Less than ideal contacts have been reported following aligner therapy, but it is considered a transitory problem, spontaneously resolving with the phenomenon of settling. Methods: Thirty-nine orthodontic patients (14 treated with aligners; 25 with fixed appliances) were evaluated with a digital occlusal analysis system (T-scan™10), assessing Maximum Intercuspation contact simultaneity, symmetry, and relative force distribution at treatment completion and after 3 and 6 months.Results No significant differences in occlusal contact quality were found between groups at treatment completion or follow-up. The center of force moved posteriorly and remained stable after 3 months but was located more anteriorly in females (p = 0.01). One-third of patients (both groups combined) had marked contact force asymmetry even after 6 months’ retention. Conclusion: Occlusal contacts were comparable at completion of treatment with aligners or brackets and after 3–6 months of retention. Settling did not improve marked asymmetry in all 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it