Skeletal and dental maxillary morphological characteristics in patients with impacted canines: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are a few hypotheses for the origin of palatally impacted canines (PIC). Nevertheless, the results of different studies are controversial. OBJECTIVE: Considering the evidence available in the literature to determine the skeletal and dentoalveolar dimensions in patients with PIC using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). SEARCH METHODS: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement. The literature search with no publication date restriction in five databases and hand searching was performed until April 2023. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data assessing the skeletal and dentoalveolar characteristics of subjects with PIC evaluated with CBCT was extracted, and the studies' quality was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Skeletal and dentoalveolar characteristics of subjects with PIC were compared with non-impacted subjects or non-impacted sides. MedCalc software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square and I-square tests. RESULTS: The initial database search identified a total of 1153 studies. After applying the selection criteria, nine articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. According to the NOS, all included articles were graded as "Good" quality. The meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in measuring dentoalveolar height, alveolar first molar width, and basal lateral width. Controversial results were observed when evaluating both basal and alveolar first premolar widths. A significant difference was found when assessing anterior alveolar crest height and basal maxillary width. CONCLUSIONS: Studies demonstrated the reduction of both dentoalveolar and skeletal maxillary parameters of the patients with PIC. The meta-analysis indicated that PIC correlates to both vertical and transverse skeletal dimensions of the maxilla. However, the results remain controversial. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to different study designs and unbalanced groups in the included studies; therefore, further research is needed for more reliable conclusions. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022362124).
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".