Comparative CBCT and Cephalometric Analysis of Vertical Maxillary Changes with Bonded and Banded Expanders in Adolescents Aged 12-18 Years.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study evaluates the vertical maxillary effects produced by banded and bonded RPEs in 12 to 18 year-old adolescents, comparing the changes obtained by both types of expanders, through CBCT and cephalometric analyses. Methods: Eight articles in adolescents with age ranging from 12 to 18 years were analyzed and applied both Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and lateral cephalograms. Outcomes of interests were differences in LAFH, SN-GoGn and the inclination of the occlusal plane. The results were synthesized to express mean with Standard Deviation (SD) and the significance of effect size was examined with p -values and effect sizes (Cohen’s d). The quality of all included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The protocol for this study has been registered on PROSPERO and the whole protocol is available on request. Results: Bonded tightens achieved significantly smaller vertical effects compared to banded tightens (eg., LAFH: bonded = 0.9±0.4 mm vs. banded = 2.3±0.6 mm; p<0.01, d = 1.27). Bounded expanders had less increase in the SN-GoGn angle (0.7±0.3°) than the banded group (1.9±0.5°, p<0.05, d = 1.05). The CBCT results indicated the amount of the posterior vertical movement and molar tipping in the bonded groups were decreased. Conclusion: In 12-18 year old adolescents, bonded expanders result in more controlled vertical maxillary changes and less mandibular rotation than do banded expanders. Bonded expanders are the method of choice when less than 2 postubes movement is desired. Additional longitudinal study is required to establish the long-term stability of these results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".