MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410352566 · doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.01.016

Temporomandibular joint condylar/fossa positional changes after Herbst and Xbow treatments in adolescents assessed through cone-beam computed tomography imaging: A randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4410352566 on OpenAlexafffund
Reid Friesen, Tareq Aldajani, Neelambar R. Kaipatur, Hollis Lai, Ivonne A. Hernández, Paul W. Major, Rojin Adabdokht, Manuel O. Lagravère

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureKelowna General HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCone beam computed tomographyTemporomandibular jointCondyleMedicineRandomized controlled trialOrthodonticsComputed tomographyTomographyNuclear medicineRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This 3-arm parallel randomized clinical trial evaluated the 3-dimensional positional changes (anteroposterior, vertical, and mediolateral) in the condyle and glenoid fossa using different Class II fixed mandibular positioners/appliances (Herbst and Xbow) compared to a control group. METHODS: A total of 54 patients were included and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups (Herbst, Xbow, and control) and followed up for an average of 12.4 months. Two cone-beam computed tomography images corresponding to pretreatment and posttreatment were taken for each patient. The mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa position relative to the reference planes were assessed using Avizo software (Thermo Fisher Science, Berlin, Germany) and landmark-to-plane distance calculation. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to determine the differences among the groups. RESULTS: (ICC for z-axis measurements) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.00) with P <0.0026. Regarding all dimensional positional changes (anteroposterior, mediolateral, and vertical), there was no significant difference in means of variations in the orthogonal distance of the condyle and glenoid fossa landmarks based on groups (P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fixed Class II orthodontic appliances (Herbst and Xbow) did not show condyle or glenoid fossa position changes relative to the reference planes formed by the cranial base and facial landmarks or change in position of the condyle relative to the glenoid fossa compared to the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry with registration No. ISRCTN57079737, retrospectively registered on October 21, 2022 (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN57079737?q=ISRCTN57079737&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10). PROTOCOL: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial No. ISRCTN57079737. FUNDING: This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207