The Use of the Surgical Guide for Placing Miniscrew in Treatment of Class II Subdivision: A Case Report With 2‐Year Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment of Class II subdivision can present a challenge for the clinician because of its asymmetry and possible midline deviation. This case report documents the use of a computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical guide for miniscrew placement in a Class II subdivision treatment. Case Presentation: A 17‐year and 1‐month‐old female presented with a skeletal Class I relationship, but mild mandibular skeletal and dental midline shift to the right relative to the facial midline. A full‐step Class II molar relationship on the right side and slight Class III molar relationship on the left side and a 4.0 mm deficiency of space in the maxillary were noticed. Using CAD/CAM technology, a surgical guide was designed virtually and 3D printed for predrilling. With the surgical guide, one ø1.3 mm twist drill was chosen to prepare a 4–5 mm deep hole in the alveolar process distobuccal to the maxillary right second premolar. A ø 1.4 m m × 8.0 m m miniscrew was inserted into the prepared hole. With this miniscrew, the unilateral Class II relationship was corrected successfully by distalization of the unilateral maxillary dentition on the Class II side after 13 months of treatment. Conclusion: Application of CAD/CAM surgical guide is very helpful for placement of the miniscrew. Class II subdivision may be treated by distalizing unilateral maxillary dentition on the Class II side using the miniscrew.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".