Comparación de la posición de terceros molares no erupcionados entre individuos con y sin fisura labiopalatina Comparison of the position of non-erupted third molars in patients with and without cleft lip and palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen Objetivo: Comparar la posición de terceros molares no erupcionados entre individuos con y sin fisura labiopalatina a través de radiografías panorámicas. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio do Se realizó un estudio documental, retrospectivo, con datos primarios, a partir del análisis de 1.000 radiografías panorámicas: 500 pertenecientes a la Facultad de Odontología de Bauru, Universidad de San Pablo (FOB/USP) y otras 500 provenientes del Hospital de Rehabilitación de Anomalías Craneofaciales, Universidad de San Pablo (HRAC/USP), seleccionadas aleatoriamente, entre agosto y diciembre de 2009. De ese universo se eligió una muestra de 152 imágenes, según los criterios de inclusión determinados en esta investigación: radiografías panorámicas pertenecientes a individuos de entre 15 y 20 años de edad, de ambos géneros, que presentaran los cuatro terceros molares (dos superiores y dos inferiores) no erupcionados, cuyas imágenes fueran de buena calidad, con un grado medio de densidad y contraste. El Grupo 1 o Grupo Control fue constituido a partir de 76 radiografías de pacientes no portadores de fisura labiopalatina, tratados en la FOB/USP; y el Grupo 2 o Grupo Experimental constó de otras 76 radiografías pertenecientes a individuos con fisura transforamen completa, atendidos en el HRAC/USP. Todas las radiografías fueron obtenidas con el mismo dispositivo panorámico y, más tarde, digitalizadas por medio del software ImageJ® (McGill University, Montreal, Canadá). Los terceros molares no erupcionados fueron clasificados según su angulación respecto del segundo molar adyacente. Resultados: Se constató una diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre los grupos evaluados respecto de los dientes inferiores (p≤0,05). En cuanto a la angulación, en el Grupo Control hubo mayor frecuencia de dientes en la posición distoangular, mientras que en el Grupo Experimental predominó la posición mesioangular. Conclusión: La posición de los terceros molares superiores en los individuos con fisura no difiere de la de los individuos sin fisura. En el caso de los inferiores, la diferencia es estadísticamente significativa. Palabras clave: Diente retenido, tercer molar, cirugía bucal, fisura labial, fisura palatina. Abstract Aim: To compare the position of non-erupted third molars in patients with and without cleft lip and palate in panoramic radiographs. Materials and methods: A retrospective study using primary data through the analysis of 1.000 panoramic radiographs was carried out. Five hundred were available at the Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo (FOB/USP), and the other ones at the Hospital for the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC/USP), and had been obtained from August to December 2009. From that universe, a sample of 152 panoramic radiographs was selected according to the following inclusion criteria: radiographs from 15 to 20 year old individuals, both genders, and with good image quality (average grade density and contrast) and featuring four non-erupted third molars (two upper and two lower). Group 1 or Control Group consisted of 76 radiographs of patients without cleft lip and palate, treated in FOB/ USP; and Group 2 or Test Group, radiographs of 76 patients with complete cleft lip and palate treated at HRAC/USP. All radiographs were obtained with the same panoramic equipment. Then, the radiographs were digitalized by the ImageJ® program (McGill University, Montreal, Canada), and non-erupted third molars were classified according to their angulations in relation to the adjacent second molars. Results: Statistically significant difference between groups was found only for lower teeth (p≤0.05). As for the angulations, the Control Group showed higher frequency of distal teeth positions, while Test Group mesial positions. Conclusion: The position of upper third molars was not different in individuals with or without cleft lip or palate. In the case of the lower, the difference is statistically significant. Key words: Non-erupted teeth, third molar, oral surgery, cleft lip, cleft palate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".