Does maxillary sinus proximity affect molar root resorption during distalization using Invisalign? a CBCT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the correlation between maxillary sinus proximity to root apices of maxillary molars and root resorption during molar distalization using clear aligner therapy (CAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight cone beam computed tomography scans (CBCTs) obtained pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) from 19 adult patients (36.68 ± 13.50 years), who underwent maxillary molar distalization using Invisalign® aligners (Align Technology, Inc., San José, CA, USA) with a minimum of 2 mm distalization, were evaluated in this study At least 22 h of aligner wear per day was a main inclusion criterion. Sinus proximity and changes in root lengths were measured for 61 molars (183 roots). Spearman coefficient analysis was used for assessing correlation between sinus proximity and root resorption. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. The reproducibility of measurements was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Spearman coefficient revealed no significant correlation between sinus proximity and molar root resorption for mesiobuccal, distobuccal or palatal roots (p = 0.558, p = 0.334, p = 0.931, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no correlation between maxillary sinus proximity to root apices of maxillary molars and root resorption.
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 | 0.001 | 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".