Unilateral Agenesis of the Upper Permanent Lateral Incisors in Growing Patients: Gap Closure or Gap Opening? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment for agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors is difficult to determine. The objective of this study was to determine, based on the evidence in the literature, the best treatment option for unilateral agenesis of upper lateral incisors, comparing the aesthetic and periodontal results of orthodontic closure of the space associated with canine camouflage versus the opening of the space and the subsequent placement of an implant, in the permanent dentition of growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Medline) were examined with the subsequent filters: English language; year of publication since 2012; humans. A manual screening of the reference lists of the potential studies was done. Risk of bias was measured by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The search found 379 publications, but 167 of them were duplicates, therefore, they were excluded. Titles and abstracts of 170 articles were accessed, and 128 were excluded. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were fully reviewed, and 7 studies were included. Data were collected from the chosen articles and organized into a table for comparison and study of the results. In contrast to patients treated with implant, whose major disadvantage is infraocclusion, patients who received space closure and canine camouflage had better aesthetic and periodontal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Even if the best treatment option depends on the type of malocclusion of the patient, if both treatment alternatives are available, space closure is the better solution. However, because research samples are small and post-treatment evaluations are short, more prospective cohort studies are needed in the future to give better scientific evidence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".