Dimensional changes in the palate associated with Invisalign First System: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare palatal dimensions and molar inclinations after Invisalign First System (IFS) to those in patients treated with slow maxillary expansion (SME) and normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three mixed dentition patients treated with IFS were gender- and dental age-matched to another two groups: Haas-type SME and control group. The intercanine width (ICW), intermolar width (IMW), palatal surface area (SA), volume (V), and first molar buccolingual inclinations (MI) were measured before (T1) and after (T2) treatment. Analysis of variance was used to compare the differences among the three groups. RESULTS: The ICW increased significantly by 3.10 mm after IFS, 4.77 mm with SME, and 0.54 mm in controls; the difference among the groups was statistically significant (P < .001). The IMW increased by 1.95 mm in IFS, 4.76 mm in SME, and 0.54 mm in controls, with significant intra- and intergroup differences. Palatal SA and volume increased by 43.50 mm2 and 294.85 mm3 in the IFS group, which differed significantly from SME, but was similar to controls. The right and left MI increased 0.24° and 0.08° buccally, respectively, in the IFS group, which was comparable to controls, while significantly increased buccal MI was observed in the SME group. CONCLUSIONS: IFS expands the upper arch with increased ICW and IMW compared to controls, but the expansion amount is smaller than SME. Unlike SME, IFS has no effects on palatal dimensions and molar inclinations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".