Comparative Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness in Skeletal Class <scp>III</scp> Malocclusion: Surgery‐First Approach Using Clear Aligners Versus Fixed Appliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess treatment outcomes, identify predictors of relapse in skeletal Class III patients treated with the surgery-first approach (SFA), comparing fixed appliances (FA) with invisalign clear aligners (CA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty adult patients treated with bimaxillary surgery and SFA were retrospectively enrolled: 20 with FA and 20 with CA. Serial cephalograms were obtained preoperatively (T0) and at 1 week (T1), 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively (T2-T4). Intergroup differences were assessed using RM-ANOVA, independent-samples t-tests, and chi-squared tests. Predictors of relapse were identified using Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Treatment duration and number of visits revealed no significant differences between the two groups. Most relapses occurred within the first 3 months postoperatively, followed by a gradual decline over the 12-month period. No significant differences in skeletal stability were observed between the FA and CA groups. However, the FA group exhibited significantly greater maxillary anteroposterior (AP) relapse (-0.98 mm) compared with the CA group (0.39 mm, p < 0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that FA treatment and greater maxillary advancement were positively associated with a greater magnitude of maxillary AP relapse. Additionally, mandibular AP relapse was associated with greater mandibular changes and less maxillary movement during surgery. CONCLUSION: Treatment efficiency and skeletal stability were similar between FA and CA in SFA-treated Class III patients, though CA provided better maxillary stability. Close monitoring during the first 3 months post-surgery is recommended to prevent dental and skeletal side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: ChiCTR2500104667.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".