Dento-Skeletal Class III Treatment with Mixed Anchored Palatal Expander: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone-anchored appliances for the treatment of Class III malocclusions have recently been found to reduce the dentoalveolar effects caused by conventional tooth-borne devices while also improving orthopaedic outcomes in growing patients. The goal of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of skeletal Class III interceptive treatment with dental anchoring devices to those achieved with mixed anchored palatal expanders. The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who were treated with hybrid anchored palatal expanders and different maxillary advancement appliances. Study quality was estimated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. A search on the Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library databases yielded 350 papers. Following the initial abstract selection, 65 potentially acceptable papers were thoroughly examined, resulting in a final selection of 9 articles. The results in the short-term showed that combined tooth-borne and bone-borne appliances for rapid maxillary expansion might be recommended in protocols of skeletal Class III treatment to obtain more skeletal effects and reduce side effects on the upper teeth.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".