Dentoalveolar comparative study between removable and fixed cribs, associated to chincup, in anterior open bite treatment

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the dentoalveolar effects produced by two types of palatal crib, removable (Rpc+C) and fixed (Fpc+C), combined with chincup in growing patients with anterior open bite. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each group comprised 30 patients, in the mixed dentition phase, with similar cephalometric characteristics and skeletal ages. Group 1 (Rpc+C) presented initial mean age of 8.3 years and mean anterior open bite of 4.0 mm. Group 2 (Fpc+C) presented initial mean age of 8.54 years and mean anterior open bite of 4.3 mm. The evaluation period comprised 12 months between initial (T1) and second lateral radiograph (T2). The T2-T1 changes were compared cephalometrically in the 2 groups using the non-paired t-test. RESULTS: Vertical changes in the posterior dentoalveolar region were similar between the groups (about 1 mm) and no significant differences were found in molar mesialization. The Fpc+C group had in average 1.6 mm more improvement of the overbite as a result of greater maxillary incisor extrusion (1.3 mm). Patients in this group also presented less lingual tipping of maxillary incisors and more mandibular incisors uprighting. CONCLUSIONS: The Fpc+C combination was more efficient in the correction of the negative overbite mainly due to greater extrusion of the maxillary incisors. However, the Rpc+C appliance promoted better upper and lower incisor inclination, resulting in a more adequate overjet

Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs

Significance Using experiments involves leeway in choosing one out of many possible experimental designs. This choice constitutes a source of uncertainty in estimating the underlying effect size which is not incorporated into common research practices. This study presents the results of a crowd-sourced project in which 45 independent teams implemented research designs to address the same research question: Does competition affect moral behavior? We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis involving 18,123 experimental participants. Importantly, however, the variation in effect size estimates across the 45 designs is substantially larger than the variation expected due to sampling errors. This “design heterogeneity” highlights that the generalizability and informativeness of individual experimental designs are limited. Abstract Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis