Comparison between the oblique and vertical interradicular placement of the mini-screw in the buccal alveolar bone between the maxillary second premolar and first molar using CAD technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of the study was to compare the oblique with the vertical buccal interradicular placement of the mini-screw between the maxillary second premolar and first molar in terms of the safety of placement and the potential maximum distalization of the maxillary dentition. Materials and methods: Using 22-patient maxillary cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and computer-aided design (CAD) technology, a virtual screw was inserted into the buccal process at the angle of 30 degrees (30ᵒ group) or 90 degrees (90ᵒ group) to the long axis of the upper second premolar. The space between the virtual screw and adjacent roots, the length of the virtual screw in the bone and the maximum distalization of the maxillary dentition were measured. Results: The means of space were around 1.52 mm in the 30ᵒ group and 1.16 mm in the 90ᵒgroup with significant difference (P< 0.001). The means of the maximum distalization were 2.85 mm in the 30ᵒ group and 1.24 mm in the 90ᵒ group with significant difference (P< 0.001). The means of the virtual screw length in the bone were 5.60 mm and 5.77mm in 30ᵒ and 90ᵒ groups respectively without significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusions: The oblique (30°) placement of mini-screw was much safer and had more potential for distalization of the maxillary dentition compared with the vertical (90°) placement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".