Reliability of three reference planes in the assessment of open bite and deep bite subjects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: A precise sagittal measurement of jaw relationships is crucial in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of three anteroposterior reference planes applied in the Wits analysis. Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was undertaken on 150 subjects. Subjects were categorized into 3 groups based on the value of pre-treatment overbite; 50 normal (1-3 mm), 50 deep (more than 3mm) and 50 open bite (less than 1 mm) subjects. The maxillomandibular bisector (MMB) was used to evaluate the anteroposterior jaw discrepancy and was compared to the Wits analysis using either the bisecting occlusal plane (BOP) or the functional occlusal plane (FOP) and the ANB angular measurement. Gender as a predictor was also analyzed for the different Wits models. Control subjects with normal overbite were compared to subjects with increased or decreased overbite. In total, 75 male and 75 female were included in the sample. Results: The correlations of the three Wits appraisals (FOP Wits, BOP Wits, MMB Wits) to each other were moderate to high ranging from 0.56 to 0.89. The strongest correlations were found between BOP Wits and MMB Wits in the open bite group (r=0.89). Moreover, the correlations of the three Wits appraisals (FOP Wits, BOP Wits, MMB Wits) to the ANB angle were low to moderate ranging from 0.39 to 0.76. The strongest correlation was found between MMB Wits and ANB angle in the open bite group (r=0.74). Conclusions: The Wits appraisal using the MM bisector is a valid indicator of the sagittal discrepancy. The MMB Wits had a higher correlation coefficient to the ANB angle than the FOP Wits, further reinforcing its validity. Caution must be exercised in trying to relate any of Wits appraisal to the gold standard of the ANB angle.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".