Closure of maxillary lateral incisor agenesis space in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a digital model assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare dental positional and gingival parameters of maxillary anterior teeth in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) after orthodontic treatment with canine substitution due to lateral incisor agenesis. METHODS: This split-mouth study comprised 57 subjects with UCLP (31 male, 26 female) and agenesis of maxillary lateral incisor at the cleft side, from a single center. Canine substitution was completed after the secondary alveolar bone graft. Dental models were taken between 2 to 6 months after debonding (mean age: 20.4 years). The following variables were measured in the maxillary anterior teeth: crown height, width, proportion, and symmetry, as well as steps between incisal edges, gingival margins, tooth mesiodistal angulation and labiolingual inclination. Paired t-tests with Bonferroni post-hoc correction was used for comparisons between cleft and non-cleft sides (p<0.05). RESULTS: At the cleft side, canines replacing missing lateral incisors had a higher crown height (0.77mm) and an increased width (0.67mm), and first premolars showed a shorter crown height (1.39mm). Asymmetries were observed in the gingival level of central and lateral incisors, with a greater clinical crown at the cleft side (0.61 and 0.81mm, respectively). Cleft side central incisors were more upright than their contralaterals (2.12º). CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary anterior teeth demonstrated positional, size and gingival height differences between cleft and non-cleft side after space closure of maxillary lateral incisor agenesis. Slight asymmetries in tooth position and gingival margin in the maxillary anterior teeth should be expected after orthodontic treatment in UCLP patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".