MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968405729 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181811a6d

The Effects of Gingivoperiosteoplasty following Alveolar Molding with a Pin-Retained Latham Appliance versus Secondary Bone Grafting on Midfacial Growth in Patients with Unilateral Clefts

2008· article· en· W1968405729 on OpenAlex
Damir B. Matic, Stephanie M. Power

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryBone graftingGraftingOcclusionPalatoplastyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gingivoperiosteoplasty is used for early closure of the alveolar cleft in patients with complete clefts of the primary palate. However, its impact on long-term facial development remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a pin-retained Latham appliance on long-term midfacial growth and compare it with secondary bone grafting. METHODS: A retrospective review identified patients born with unilateral complete clefts of the primary and secondary palate. All patients were past the age of permanent canine tooth eruption. Standard cephalometric landmarks were plotted and analyzed by a blinded rater. Patients were divided into two groups based on type of alveolar closure: secondary bone grafting-only or gingivoperiosteoplasty-total. The gingivoperiosteoplasty-total group was further subdivided based on gingivoperiosteoplasty clinical outcomes. Statistical analyses first controlled for age and then for age and palate repair. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 14.7 years. Radiographs were obtained for 54 patients (gingivoperiosteoplasty-total, n = 38; secondary bone grafting-only, n = 16). The gingivoperiosteoplasty-total group demonstrated decreased maxillary height (p = 0.005) and protrusion (p = 0.001) versus secondary bone grafting only. Dentoalveolar occlusion was not statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gingivoperiosteoplasty following alveolar molding with a pin-retained Latham appliance resulted in decreased maxillary protrusion and height compared with secondary bone grafting only. These differences were found irrespective of the technique of palatoplasty. This technique resulted in similar growth patterns as documented following primary bone grafting. Secondary bone grafting therefore remains the authors' surgical approach to the cleft alveolus.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it