Effect of laser corticotomy on canine retraction rate: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effect of corticotomy with Er: YAG (erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet) laser on the rate of canine retraction. METHODS: This randomized split-mouth controlled clinical trial was conducted on 12 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with extraction of maxillary first premolars. Following initial leveling and alignment, an alginate impression was made from the maxillary arch, and Er: YAG laser corticotomy was performed in one of the maxillary quadrants of each patient. Canine retraction was started immediately after corticotomy by placement of nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed coil springs at both sides. At the end of each month, alginate records were repeated for 4 months. Study models were scanned, and the anteroposterior movement of canine was quantified bilaterally. Pain was also measured by a visual analog scale (VAS). Probing depth (PPD) of canines and two adjacent teeth was also evaluated and pulp vitality was assessed by performing the cold test. Data were analyzed by paired and independent t-test and one-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: The rate of canine retraction was significantly greater in the laser-assisted corticotomy quadrant than the control (P < 0.05). No significant difference existed in posterior anchorage loss, canine rotation angle, PPD, pulp vitality, or pain score between two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Flapless Er: YAG laser corticotomy significantly enhanced canine retraction rate with no adverse effect on other parameters.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".