ArticleBMC oral health2025
Predictive variables analysis for the tongue crib treatment of anterior crossbite in mixed dentition.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to identify key prognostic variables and to develop and validate a clinical prediction model for pre-treatment assessment of tongue crib applicability.
methodsThis retrospective study included 128 cases with anterior crossbite treated with tongue crib in mixed dentition. The total samples were categorized into applicable (n = 80, corrected within 6 months without relapse) and non-applicable (n = 48) groups. Cephalometric parameters were measured using Dolphin Imaging 11.8, with Python (3.9.12) for statistical analysis. Randomly select 80% as the training set and the remaining 20% as the testing set with 100 iterations to establish logistic regression models incorporating SNB-ANB, Wits, and APDI sagittal parameters as predictors. Three predictive equations P = Exp(L)/1 + Exp(L), with a critical score of 0.5 underwent apparent validation on the training set and internal validation performed on the test set. The model demonstrating optimal validity and accuracy was selected to guide the clinical application.
resultsAs for the total prediction accuracy of apparent validation on the training set and internal validation performed on the test set, SNB-ANB model was 79.9% and 77.0%; Wits model was 80.3% and 78.9%; APDI model was the highest, which was 81.1% and 80.5%. When the three prediction models changed from apparent validation on the training set to internal validation performed on the test set, the total prediction accuracy decreased slightly (-0.6% ~ -2.9%) with the APDI model exhibiting superior stability.
conclusionsThe APDI simplified prediction model expression was P = Exp(L)/1+ Exp(L), L = -0.305(APDI)-0.341(MP-FH)-0.263(Co-Go)+50.496. "P" was the probability predicted to be applicable for tongue crib treatment, with a critical score of 0.5 (that was, p >0.5 was applicable, p < 0.5 was non-applicable). Applying the prediction model was able to effectively predict the results of anterior crossbite in mixed dentition treated with tongue crib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.