External root resorption and rapid maxillary expansion in the short-term: a CBCT comparative study between tooth-borne and bone-borne appliances, using 3D imaging digital technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyze and compare external root resorption (ERR) in patients treated with tooth-borne (TB) and bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME). METHODS: The sample included 40 subjects who received tooth-borne RME (TB group, average age: 13.1 ± 1.08 years) or bone-borne RME (BB group, average age: 14.5 ± 1.11 years) and Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before treatment (T0) and after 3-month of retention (T1). A specific 3D Imaging technology was used to generate 3D models of posterior dentition (M1 = maxillary first molars, P2 = second premolars, P1 = first premolar) and calculate volumetric data (mean and percentage values) and shape changes, the latter obtained from deviation analysis between the radicular models at different time points. Evaluation of radicular length changes was performed for each tooth. Data were statistically analysed to perform intra-timing and inter-groups comparisons. RESULTS: A significant reduction of radicular volume and length was found in posterior dentition in both groups (p < 0.05), and the M1 (volume) and its palatal root (length) were mostly involved in this response. No differences were found between M1, P1 and P2 (p > 0.05) when volumetric changes were calculated as percentage of the total volume. Deviation analysis revealed that the radicular areas mostly affected by shape change were the apex and bucco-medial side. The amount of ERR was significantly greater in TB group compared to BB group. CONCLUSIONS: BB-RME treatment could reduce the amount of ERR at the post-expansion stage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".