Long Term Effects of the Latham Presurgical Maxillary Orthopedic Appliance, Including Effects on Tooth Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reported beneficial effects of presurgical maxillary orthopedics in cleft lip include reduction of the cleft width, alignment of the maxillary segments, elevation of the alar base on the cleft side, diminished need for alveolar bone grafting and lip closure without tension. Possible adverse effects of presurgical maxillary orthopedics include tooth root damage and inability of periosteoplasty to make bone over the cleft. A series of wide cleft lip patients (n=15) treated with the Latham appliance at the time of lip closure were retrospectively compared with a similar group treated without the Latham appliance. The Latham appliance group (seven unilateral clefts, eight bilateral clefts; mean follow-up 9.5 years; range four to 18 years) was treated between the years 1980 and 1994. None of the 15 patients treated with the appliance had any tooth loss or damage attributable to the pins, and bone formation in the alveolar cleft was observed radiographically in all 13 of the patients who had a periosteoplasty at the time of lip repair, possibly obviating the need for secondary bone grafting. Five of these Latham group patients demonstrated clinical and radiographic evidence of tooth eruption into the periosteoplasty-formed bone. There was no consistent difference in the level of nasal alar base elevation in the two groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".