Skeletal versus conventional anchorage in dentofacial orthopedics: an international modified Delphi consensus study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To establish consensus of skeletal anchorage versus conventional anchorage in treating: 1. Maxillary transverse deficiency in growing and adult patients, 2. Class II skeletal disharmony due to mandibular retrusion in growing patients, 3. Class III skeletal disharmony in growing patients. Methods A four-rounds modified Delphi method was conducted. A steering committee performed a literature selection and compiled a list of 33 statements. An international panel of 25 experts in orthodontics agreed to participate. In each round, panelists were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale and provide comments. Statements that reached consensus were either accepted or rephrased. Statements that did not reach consensus were either rephrased, rejected, or split into two statements or merged with another. Results After the four rounds, 24 statements achieved consensus while 9 were rejected. The distribution of consensus statements was as follows: Maxillary transverse deficiency: 4 statements; Class II skeletal disharmony: 10 statements; Class III skeletal disharmony: 10 statements. Conclusions This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to provide guidance for orthodontists in choosing between skeletal and conventional anchorage for various treatment conditions. The study generated 24 consensus statements across three key domains. While the Delphi method provides valuable expert opinions, future studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings and address remaining uncertainties. Such efforts will aid in refining orthodontic treatment protocols and enhancing patient 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.237 | 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".