Periodontal considerations in orthodontic treatment: A review of the literature and recommended protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthodontic treatment can preserve, harm or benefit the periodontal condition.During orthodontic treatment, patients may be at a greater risk of developing periodontal disease or conditions. Thus, the treating clinicians should carefully evaluate their patients’ periodontal conditions prior to, during, and after the completion of orthodontic treatment. This literature review describes the damage situations and the methods of preventing and repairing them as well as situations in which the orthodontic intervention contributes to the periodontal status. Recommended protocols for periodontal screening, maintenance and follow-up are presented as well.Clinicians should conduct a complete periodontal evaluation prior to initiating orthodontic treatment, help patients develop an effective home care therapy regimen, ensure the absence of periodontal disease and or mucogingival deformities and conditions that may worsen during orthodontic treatment, and determine the appropriate recall maintenance program for the patient. During the active orthodontic phase, patients’ periodontal conditions should be carefully monitored, compared to their baseline clinical and radiographic measurements, and treated if necessary. Patients’ compliance with the suggested home oral care should be carefully evaluated and reinforced. If necessary, the orthodontic treatment may need to be stopped temporarily until patients’ home oral care improves.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".