Comparative Evaluation of Fixed Functional Cantilever Space Maintainer and Fixed Nonfunctional Space Maintainer: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Effective way to prevent mesial drift after the early loss of primary first molars is by inserting a durable space maintainer. Several space maintainers are available; fixed nonfunctional (FNF) space maintainer (crown and loop) is commonly used when abutment teeth need full-coronal restoration. Disadvantages of crown and loop space maintainer are nonfunctional, nonesthetic, and fracture of solder loop. To overcome this drawback, new design of fixed functional cantilever (FFC) space maintainer (crown and pontic) using bis-acrly composite resin. The study evaluated the longevity and acceptance of an FFC and compared it with a FNF space maintainer. Materials and methods: A total of 20 healthy children, aged 6-9 years, were selected having bilateral premature loss of lower deciduous first molars. FFC space maintainer in one quadrant and FNF space maintainer in the other was cemented. The subject's acceptance of treatment was checked using a visual analog scale after the treatment completion. Criteria for complication leading to the failure was assessed in both the designs in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th month. Cumulative success longevity was obtained at a 9 month evaluation. Results: Patient acceptability was greater in group I (FFC) in comparison to group II (FNF). In group I, fracture of the crown and pontic was the common complication leading to failure, followed by attrition of the crown and loss of material due to abrasion. In group II, fracture of the solder joint was the common complication leading to failure, followed by slippage of the loop gingivally and cement loss. The longevity of groups I and II were 70 and 85%, respectively. Conclusion: FFC can be considered a viable alternative to conventional FNF space maintainers. How to cite this article: Comparative Evaluation of Fixed Functional Cantilever Space Maintainer and Fixed Nonfunctional Space Maintainer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(6):750-760.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".