Effect of maxillary sinus proximity on upper molar movement during distalization with clear aligner therapy: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to assess the correlation between maxillary sinus proximity to root apices of maxillary molars and changes in molar angulation (tipping), inclination (torque), and rotation during molar distalization using clear aligner therapy (CAT).Methods: This study evaluated 38 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images obtained pre (T0) and post (T1) treatment from 19 adult patients who underwent maxillary molar distalization using Invisalign aligners (Align Technology, Inc., San José, CA, USA) with at least 2mm distalization. Only those who wore the aligner for at least 22 hours daily were included in the study. Sinus proximity and the changes in tip, torque and rotation were measured for 61 molars. Spearman coefficient analysis was used to appraise the correlation between sinus proximity and each of the other measured variables. The level of significance was set at p≤ 0.05. The reproducibility of measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).Results: Spearman coefficient revealed a significant positive correlation between maxillary sinus proximity to root apices and molar inclination (buccal crown torque) (p=0.044). Palatal root proximity to the sinus was the only individual root eliciting a positive correlation with molar inclination (p=0.022). No significant correlation was found between sinus proximity and molar angulation (tipping) nor rotation (p= 0.381 and p=0.124, respectively).Conclusion: Proximity of maxillary molars root apices to the maxillary sinus causes more buccal crown torque during distalization using CAT, while it has no significant effect on molar tipping nor rotation.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".