Cephalometric evaluation of soft tissue effects induced by a class II corrector in different facial patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the magnitude of soft tissue changes in subjects with different facial patterns following Class II correction. Materials/Methods: A retrospective sample of 80 subjects exhibiting Class II malocclusions was used. Subjects were categorized into facial types according to pre-treatment values of MPA and Y-axis, which yielded 20 brachycephalic, 40 mesocephalic, and 20 dolichocephalic subjects. Data collection included digital analysis on the pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) cephalometric radiographs. A paired t-test statistic was used to investigate the differences between the three facial groups at T0 and T1. Conclusions: There are differences in the soft tissue effects observed in patients treated with the XbowTM appliance which are related to the pre-existing facial pattern (p<0.05): The mesocephalic group showed increased retrusion of the upper lip to E-Plane compared with brachycephalic, and dolichocephalic groups. The dolichocephalic group showed significantly more flattening of the mentolabial fold compared to the mesocephalic group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".