Effect of Bilateral Mandibular Osteodistration on the Condylar Cartilage: An Experimental Study on Rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Although various aspects of bone formation during distraction osteogenesis have been studied extensively, there are only limited experimental data concerning the influence of hyper-physiologic mandibular distraction rate on structural alterations in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) condylar cartilage. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of bilateral distraction osteogenesis of the mandibular body, at a hyper-physiologic rate and length, on the integrity of the condylar cartilage in rabbits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen healthy adult male rabbits weighing 2 to 3 kg were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the control group (n = 2 rabbits, 4 joints) or the study group (n = 16 rabbits, 32 joints) four rabbits (8 joints) in each subgroup according to the post-distraction period (1,2,3 or 4 weeks). In the control group, rabbits received sham surgery (Osteotomy without distraction) and then left to live for 4 weeks under the same condition of the study group then euthanized using intravenous overdose of pentobarbital sodium. In the study group, an extra oral custom-made distracter was employed to achieve bilateral mandibular hyper physiologic distraction (1.5 mm twice daily for 5 days) distraction. All animals were evaluated clinically and histomorphometrically and results analyzed by MINITABE 13.1 statistical package using ANOVA test. RESULTS: Animals underwent distraction showed obvious changes in condylar surface contour related to length of the follow up period, compared to the control; these changes seemed to be partly reversible. The most pronounced observation was the irregularities and resorption in the anterior part of the condylar cartilage and the subcondylar bone. Moreover, at the first two weeks, the area of resorption was invaded by large number of osteoclasts and chronic inflammatory cells which declined later in the 3rd and 4th weeks and replaced with osteoblastic activities. CONCLUSION: These experimental data showed that distraction rate of 3 mm per day may lead to degenerative or even early arthritic changes in the TMJ condylar cartilage in the 1st and 2nd post-distraction weeks. However, all condyles showed adaptive and remodeling sings in the following 3rd and 4th weeks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".