MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415830874 · doi:10.1016/j.identj.2025.105427

Treatment Of Class III With Facemask Therapy

2025· article· en· W4415830874 on OpenAlexaff
Vesna Trpevska, Бруно Николовски, Julija Zarkоva Atanasova, Zlatanovska Katerina, Анета Мијоска, Marjan Petkov, Aleksandar Kovacevski, Biljana Koseva, Cena Dimova, Gordana Kovacevska

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Dental Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalocclusionOrthopedic surgeryMaxillaCephalometryRadiation treatment planningMandible (arthropod mouthpart)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angle Class III malocclusion has been a challenge and one of the most difficult malocclusions concerning diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis depend on patient age, growth potential and severity of malocclusion. The aim of this case report was to describe and discuss the treatment of a patient with skeletal Class III malocclusion with mechanical orthopedic appliances. Female patient, age 9 years with skeletal Class III malocclusion was treated with the Delair Facemask as a specialized orthodontic appliance, which applies controlled, continuous forces to the facial structure, aiding in the proper alignment of the teeth and promoting optimal jaw development. The SNA angle had increased while SNB decreased resulting in a normal jaw relationship (ANB = 2°). The results of this case showed that Class III malocclusion should be intercepted as early as possible to permit growth redirection, mainly when the maxilla is the primary etiologic factor. Maxillary intramembranous growth has a better response to orthopedic treatment, based on growth control and redirection, thus contributing for early intervention success. Early intervention, adequate indication of appliances, and patient compliance are key factors for good outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Dental JournalSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207