The Impact of Orthodontic fixed appliance and clear plastic aligner in periodontal health; A comparative clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To find out the periodontal health of patients with fixed orthodontic and clear aligner treatment with a follow-up of three months supportive periodontal therapy. Study Setting: After receiving approval from the hospital's ethical committee the study was conducted at Department of Dentistry Faryal Dental College, Sheikhupura from September 2021 to February 2022. Material and Methods: For this study 40 individuals were selected and divided them into 2 different groups regarding age and mode of treatment. In Group E, 20 individuals were of age in between 15-30 years and they used multi-bracket fixed therapy while in Group F, 20 individuals of age in between 15- 30 years were used treatment with clear aligners. Results: Results of current study were significant (P < 0.05) regarding logistic regression model of descriptive statistics of dependent variables measured for periodontal therapy after 3 month follow-up respectively. Percentage standard mean deviation (Mean±SD) levels of recovery rate, patient compliance, probing depth, plaque index, bleeding on probing and gingival recession for fixed appliance brackets and clear aligners were (56.21± 11.11, 31.14± 11.11, 13.04± 10.01, 26.10± 3.10, 15.21± 10.12, 01.12± 13.11),( 59.22± 1.01, 43.11± 01.10, 14.01± 11.21, 22.10± 3.10, 6.11± 10.11, 06.12± 14.11) noted respectively. Conclusion: The results of current study were significant (P < 0.05) regarding logistic regression model of descriptive statistics of dependent variables measured for periodontal therapy after 3 month follow-up respectively. Patient compliance with clear aligner treatment was higher than fixed appliance brackets. Key words: Fixed orthodontic appliance, clear aligner, periodontal diseases
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".