Evaluation of Cleft Adjacent Canine Eruption in Patients With Alveolar Cleft Treated With Early Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Evaluate cleft adjacent canine eruption in patients who underwent early secondary alveolar bone grafting (ABG). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting North-American cleft center. Subjects A total of 121 children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and alveolus or cleft lip and palate (unilateral or bilateral). Methods Patients consecutively treated with early or later secondary ABG during a 10-year period were evaluated. The primary outcome identified the status of cleft adjacent canine eruption through the grafted site. Secondary outcomes included need for regrafting, need for pregraft expansion and status of the cleft lateral incisor. Categorical variables were compared with Pearson’s chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 152 ABG (125 early and 27 later ABG) were performed in 121 patients. The age at time of ABG differed significantly between the 2 groups with a mean age of 73.5 ± 5.0 months for the early ABG group versus 113.4 ± 32.0 months for the later ABG group ( P < .001). None of the patients required pregraft expansion. The cleft diagnosis distribution was similar ( P = .686). The overall need for regrafting was 1.3% and did not differ between the groups (1.6% vs 0%; P = .675). The cleft adjacent canine spontaneously erupted in 84.0% for early ABG versus 70.4% for later ABG group. Close to twice as many canines required surgical exposure (9.6% vs 18.5%) or extraction (6.4% vs 11.1%) in the later ABG group, but this difference was not statistically significant ( P = .183). Conclusions Early secondary ABG, without pregraft expansion, does not compromise the eruption of the cleft adjacent canine compared to later secondary ABG.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".