Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the impact of various treatment modalities for anterior disc displacement (ADD) on the growth and development of adolescents' temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis included 11 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies) with 1167 patients diagnosed with ADD. The studies were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and OVID up to March 2024. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Cochrane methods were used to assess the certainty of evidence. Data on condylar height and SNB angle were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis. After ADD treatment, patients' condylar heights increased by about 1.76 mm. In the surgical group, condylar heights increased by about 1.82 mm, while in the non-surgical group, the increase was about 0.27 mm, indicating a less significant improvement. Additionally, the SNB angle increased by about 1.62°. ADD treatment can promote condylar growth and reduce the occurrence of maxillofacial deformity, while surgical group showing a more significant improvement than the non-surgical group. Surgical treatment stimulated condylar growth by restoring the normal TMJ structure and repositioning the articular disc to its natural physiological position. In contrast, non-surgical treatment had a less pronounced effect, with better outcomes in patients with reversible anterior disc displacement and poorer results in those with irreversible displacement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".