Comparative 3D study of dental arches in children with microcephaly associated with congenital Zika syndrome, orofacial cleft, and without craniofacial anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The dentist participates in the treatment protocol for craniofacial anomalies in individuals from the first months of life. OBJECTIVE: to compare in a retrospective cohort study the morphometry of the edentulous palate of children microcephaly associated with congenital Zika syndrome (CZS), unilateral complete cleft lip and alveolus (UCL), and without craniofacial anomalies. METHODS: Forty-five digitized dental molds composed the sample divided into three groups: CZS; UCL; and without craniofacial anomalies (control group). The following measurements were evaluated: intercanine and intertuberosity distances; dental arch length, area, volume, and mismatch superimposition. Parametric and non-parametric tests were applied (α = 5%). RESULTS: CZS group showed the smallest means of intercanine distance and area than those of the other groups (p = .001 and p = .010, respectively). The dental arch length was greater in the CZS group than in the control group (p = .020). The evaluation of the mismatch superimposition showed that the CZS group had the lowest means of maximum distance and root mean square than that of the UCL group (p = .025 and p = .005, respectively). CONCLUSION: CZS participants tended to palatal narrowing, while UCL individuals had parameters similar to those of the control group, despite the alveolus defect.
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".