Treatment effects of Herbst appliance in skeletal Class II cases during pre-pubertal and post-pubertal periods: a cone-beam computed tomographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, Thirty-six Class patients II (A condition in which the upper jaw is larger than the lower jaw) were randomly selected and assigned to one of two groups based on their maturation stage: the pre-pubertal group (18 patients, mean age 9.15 ± 1.5 years) and post-pubertal group (18 patients, mean age 16.3 ± 1.0 years). All patients were treated with a metallic splint-supported Herbst IV appliance (An appliance that acts like artificial joint working between the upper and power jaws that keeps the lower jaw in a forward position, thus improving the Class II condition). Pretreatment (T1) and post-Herbst IV treatment (T2) scans were obtained for both groups. Dental and skeletal measurements were made on the scans and statistically analyzed using paired and independent t-tests. The study hypothesis was that; the dentoskeletal changes in Class II malocclusion treatment using Herbst appliance in the Pre-pubertal is more than the Post-pubertal growth stage due to the remaining growth potential for the pre-pubertal patients. The comparison between the two groups revealed statistically significant differences in horizontal skeletal parameters in the lower jaw only, while other readings were similar.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".