Root development differences between cleft-adjacent teeth on the cleft side in comparison to their analogs on the noncleft side in patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate who received secondary alveolar bone grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in root development between the cleft side (CS) and noncleft side (NCS) for permanent maxillary central incisor and canine longitudinally in patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (cUCLP) who received secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) and to evaluate the effects of SABG on the acceleration of root development of these teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Permanent maxillary central incisors and canines of 44 subjects with nonsyndromic cUCLP who had all their cleft-related surgeries performed by the same surgeon were analyzed retrospectively from chart notes and radiographs. Panoramic and periapical radiographs at time point 1 (T1) (age, 7.55 years), at SABG (time point 2 [T2], 10.13 years), and a minimum of 2 years after SABG were studied. Root development rating scores on the NCS and CS were compared using paired t-tests and analyses of proportions. RESULTS: Mean root development score differences (NCS - CS) for canines and central incisors were greatest at T2 but diminished at time point 3 (T3). A larger proportion of teeth on the CS trailed the teeth on the NCS by at least 1 point at T2 than at T1 or T3, with the smallest proportion being observed at T3. The change in root development scores from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3 showed relative CS acceleration from T2 to T3, indicating a catch-up of root development of cleft-adjacent teeth after SABG. CONCLUSIONS: Root development of cleft-adjacent central incisors and canines is slow in comparison with their noncleft analogs. Root development of these teeth accelerates following SABG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".