The Morphology of Impacted Maxillary Central Incisors: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The knowledge of the morphology of impacted maxillary central incisors may lead to more effective treatment. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the morphology of impacted maxillary central incisors and compare them with contralateral teeth. Material and methods: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was carried out using PubMed (Medline database), Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Web of Science and Science Direct electronic databases with no publication date restrictions up to July 2021. Data assessing the morphology of unilaterally impacted maxillary central incisors (ICI) evaluated with CBCT were extracted, and the quality of the studies was evaluated. Crown length, root length, and root dilaceration of impacted maxillary central incisors were compared with contralateral unimpacted teeth. Results: The initial database search identified a total number of 287 studies. After applying the selection criteria, 21 articles were selected for a full-text analysis, and four retrospective studies involving 205 patients were included in the systematic review. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), two of included articles were graded as “Good” and the remaining two as “Fair” quality. The results showed no difference between impacted teeth and their contralateral crowns, or a minor decrease in ICI crown length (from 0.15 to 0.56 mm). The root lengths of impacted maxillary central incisors were considerably shorter than contralateral incisors (from 2.13 to 3.22 mm) and, as dental age increased, root growth decreased and the incidence of root dilaceration was more frequent. Conclusions: The root lengths of impacted maxillary central incisors were considerably shorter compared to the contralateral incisors. Root dilacerations frequency and severity increased as dental age increased.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".