Bracket positioning have an impact on smile arc protection – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives The available literature concerning bracket positioning and its relationship with smile arc protection (SAP) lacks adequate methodology and significant sample sizes. The majority of the literature consists of case reports with small sample sizes, cross-sectional studies, in vitro studies, literature reviews, and systematic reviews. Thus, the principal objective of this study was to assess the existing literature on bracket positioning and its influence on SAP, and to amalgamate the data from various studies to generate a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of bracket positioning in achieving SAP. Selection criteria and search protocol: Databases of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched using predetermined selection criteria. Analysis protocol: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed for the evaluation of bias in the studies included in the review. Results Three relevant studies were considered for inclusion in the review. Odds ratio (OR) of 0.53 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.33 to 0.85, and risk ratio (RR) of 0.64 with a 95% CI of 0.45 to 0.90 were obtained after meta-analysis, indicating a significant impact of bracket positioning on SAP. The test for overall effect also demonstrated a statistically significant effect of bracket positioning on SAP. Conclusion and further implications: The findings suggest that bracket positioning has a noticeable impact on SAP, with decreased odds or relative risk of protection associated with improper positioning. However, the level of heterogeneity between the studies suggests that further research is needed to confirm these findings. The limitations of the study include the small number of studies under review and the variability in study designs and methods. Registration and protocol: Registration was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards [CRD42023407270]. The research protocol was created to meet the goals and was properly filed with PROSPERO. BJMS, Vol. 24 No. 03 July’25 Page : 984-994
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".