MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969159608 · doi:10.1080/10255840601098098

Maxillary expansion treatment using bone anchors: development and validation of a 3D finite element model

2007· article· en· W1969159608 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanyong Fang, Manuel O. Lagravère, Jason P. Carey, Paul W. Major, R. R. Toogood

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodCraniofacialMaterials scienceDisplacement (psychology)Cone beam computed tomographyHounsfield scaleSkullStress (linguistics)Transverse planeOrthodonticsBiomechanicsStructural engineeringDentistryComputed tomographyMedicineEngineeringAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Develop a finite element (FE) model of a skull to perform biomechanical studies of maxillary expansion using bone anchors (BA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A skull model was developed and assigned material properties based on Hounsfield unit (HU) values of cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) images. A 3 mm diameter cylindrical BA was modelled and inserted in the palatal bone. A 4 mm transverse displacement was applied on the anchor. An evaluation on the effect on local stresses of BA implantation inclination angle was performed. RESULTS: Proper displacement results and strain-stress trends for the expansion process were present. Stress distribution patterns were similar as reported in the literature. No significant difference between BA inclination angles was found. CONCLUSION: This work leads to a better understanding and prediction of craniofacial and maxillary bone remodelling during ME with BA treatments and is a first step towards the development of patient specific treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207