Should Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Be Performed Prior to Orthodontic Miniscrew Placement in the Infrazygomatic Crest Area?—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no unequivocal scientific consensus for the temporary anchorage device (TAD) positioning in the infrazygomatic crest area (IZC). The two principal aims of this systematic review were to assess bone availability in the IZC and to establish both the target site and the need for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) prior to miniscrew placement. The study was performed following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42023411650). The inclusion criteria were: at least 10 patients, three-dimensional radiological examination, and IZC assessment for the TAD placement. ROBINS-I tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality evaluation. No funding was obtained. The study was based on the information coming from: PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, MDPI, Wiley, and Cochrane Libraries. The last search was carried out on 1 August 2023. Fourteen studies were identified for analysis. A narrative synthesis was performed to synthesize the findings of the different studies. Unfortunately, it is not possible to establish the generally recommended target site for IZC TAD placement. The reasons for this are the following: heterogeneity of available studies, inconsistent results, and significant risk of bias. The high variability of bone measurements and the lack of reliable predictors of bone availability justify the use of CBCT for TAD trajectory planning. There is a need for more high-quality studies aiming three-dimensional bone analysis of the IZC.
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 | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".