MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387931301 · doi:10.1111/ipd.13131

Self‐correction of the ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar and its predictive factors: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4387931301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Renata Travassos da Rosa Moreira Bastos, Cibelle Cristina Oliveira dos Santos, Silvio Augusto Bellini‐Pereira, David Normando

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMolarImpactionDentistryOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar is a local disturbance that affects the development of the occlusion. AIM: To evaluate the occurrence of self-correction of maxillary first permanent molar's ectopic eruption and its predictive factors. DESIGN: Five electronic databases and part of the gray literature were investigated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE tool. RESULTS: Four studies were selected: Three had a low risk of bias, and one, moderate. Evidence with a moderate level of certainty was generated, indicating a possibility of 47%-78% of spontaneous correction up to 7 years of age. Supporting the prognosis, whether reversible or irreversible, there was a positive correlation between the severity of the atypical distal resorption of the second primary molar, a higher magnitude of impaction, a larger eruption angle, and a bilateral occurrence with the irreversibility of the cases. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous correction of the ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar is feasible and dependent on the severity of predictive factors. Early intervention is mandatory in irreversible cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Paediatric DentistrySame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207