Present: the Use of Mini-Implants in Modern Orthodontics for Distalization of Molars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess volume loss during treatment of Class II occlusion pathology according to Engle using appliances supported by miniscrews. Materials and methods: Pubmed, Scopus and review articles were included in the comprehensive search. The methodological quality of retrospective studies was assessed using the Quantitative Research Quality Assessment Tool developed for the Effective Public Health Practice project, and prospective studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results. We found a total of 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria. The quality of all 4 retrospective studies was rated as moderate according to the quality assessment tool, while some studies were rated as better than others according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. There were 7 studies that received high scores and 3 studies that received medium scores. The mean variation in molar distalization scores ranged from 1.8 mm to 6.4 mm and molar distal inclination from 1.65° to 11.3°, while premolars and incisors ranged from 1.75 mm to 5.4 mm and 0.1 mm to 2.7 mm, respectively. Conclusions: Miniscrew-supported appliances are quite effective for distalization of molars with distal movement of premolars with minimal loss of anchorage (anchor fixation) and distal inclination of molars.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".