Uønskede effekter ved kjeveortopediske retainere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English summary Adverse effects of fixed orthodontic retainers. A systematic review and clinical checkpoints for the general dentist Nor Tannlegeforen Tid. 2021; 131: 1106-19. Active orthodontic treatment is usually followed by a retention phase. Although fixed retention is necessary to prevent relapse, duration of the retention phase might be ambiguous, questioning both follow-up and side effects. The aim of this study was to assess the possible adverse effects of fixed orthodontic retainers and prepare a clinical protocol for the general practitioners in case of retainer-related events. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (including Central), Embase, Web of Science, and SveMed+. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were considered according to PICO format. The quality assessment for cohort studies and randomized trials were performed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane’s Collaboration’s tool, respectively. A total of 16 studies (13 cohort studies, 3 randomized trials) were included. Eleven studies reported periodontal outfalls, with increased plaque, gingivitis, and calculus indices. Three studies explored biomarkers and two studies assessed unexpected tooth movements. The overall conclusion is that clinicians must be aware of hygiene control and unexpected tooth movements induced by the retainer in rare cases. Further research is needed to assess possible long-term effects and rotational mechanisms of fixed retainers. Effects of failed retainers must be identified and handled promptly by the effort of clinical guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".