MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396899131 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2024/67817.19443

Comparative Analysis of Canine Distalisation between Ceramic and Metal Brackets: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4396899131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arshya A Kumar, Ravindra Kumar Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeramicMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Orthodontic treatment frequently entails the distalisation of canines to address various malocclusions, involving moving the canines towards the posterior region of the dental arch. A crucial consideration in this treatment is the type of bracket material utilised, as it can impact the efficacy and efficiency of Canine Distalisation (CD). Aim: To analyse various in-vivo studies to evaluate the comparison of the rate of maxillary CD between Ceramic Brackets (CB) and Metal Brackets (MB) during fixed orthodontic treatment. Secondary factors assessed include the loss of anchorage, canine rotation, and canine tipping. Material and Methods: Articles were searched in electronic databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and PubMed. The search strategy was designed by two authors, AK and RKJ. The search did not include date restrictions. The list of references for the included articles was also searched. The systematic review included two Controlled Clinical Trials (CCT) and one Randomised Control Trial (RCT). Two authors, AK and RKJ, independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the identified studies during the literature search and then combined their findings. The information considered from the short-listed studies included the first author, year of publication, rate of CD, CB, and MB. Cochrane’s Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, RoB2 tool, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale were used to analyse bias. Results: The present review incorporated three studies. The analysis of the RoB indicated low RoB in one study and fair RoB in the other two. The systematic review highlighted that there was no significant difference in the rate of CD between CB and MB. Conclusion: The available evidence was limited and of moderate quality, showing no difference in the rate of CD performed using ceramic and MB. Hence, clinically, there is no difference in using metal or CB, even though CBs are known to have higher SR in in-vitro evaluations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.012
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.432
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCHSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207