Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate adolescent orthodontic patient experiences with fixed appliances compared to Invisalign® by means of a quality of life questionnaire. Materials and Methods: Ethical approval was obtained by the University of Manitoba’s Health Research Ethics Board. Adolescent patients between the ages of 11-18 from the University of Manitoba Graduate Orthodontic Clinic and from four private practices in Winnipeg currently undergoing orthodontic treatment with either Invisalign® or fixed appliances were provided a questionnaire. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to evaluate whether the participants in the fixed appliances group answered each item differently than those in the Invisalign® group (p < 0.05), and unpaired t-tests (p < 0.05), were used to test for differences in mean satisfaction, quality of life, and domain scores. Results: Overall, 74 patients (37 in each group) participated. No significant difference was noted in the mean quality of life, domain, or satisfaction score between the two groups. A significant difference was noted in the time taken to adjust to appliances with the Invisalign® group demonstrating faster adaption. Additionally, the fixed appliances group was 3.8 times more likely to report missing school because of their appliance (95% CI: 1.2, 12.5, p= 0.02) and 2.7 times more likely to report having difficulty eating certain foods compared to the Invisalign® group (95% CI: 1.1, 7.1, p= 0.04). When the subgroup of females between the ages of 14-18 was analyzed, a higher proportion of the Invisalign® group reported feeling attractive compared to the fixed appliances group. Conclusion: The overall oral health-related quality of life of adolescent patients undergoing treatment in fixed appliances and Invisalign® for a minimum of six months is similar. Both groups expressed high satisfaction with treatment, and the majority would choose their current modality again.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.249 | 0.090 |
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".