Effect of orthodontic initiation time on autotransplanted teeth outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tooth autotransplantation is one of the treatment options to compensate for tooth loss with the advantage of preserving alveolar bone volume and interdental papilla. Several studies have investigated the influence of orthodontic movement timing on autotransplanted teeth with different prognosis outcomes. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effect of orthodontic movement time on autotransplanted teeth outcomes. Methods: A bibliographic search was carried out on PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane databases for English articles with no limitations in the year of publication. Eligible articles were included for data retrieval, followed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the risk of bias assessment. Results: A total of five articles have met the inclusion criteria. The initiation of orthodontic movement timing has varied among the included studies between 4 and 8 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, and 3-9 months with different findings. Conclusions: Autotransplanted teeth that have received orthodontic forces showed integrity in the periodontium. However, the effect of orthodontic initiation time was controversial, and further clinical studies are warranted.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".