A Contraindication for the Use of Hydroxyapatite Cement in the Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors report on their experience with a particular hydroxyapatite cement in the pediatric population and review cases that elucidate potential limitations of its use in this population. In all patients, the implant was used for recontouring and augmenting the cranial vault. Seven of 15 patients had a direct communication between sinus mucosa and the implant at the time of surgery. Three of the seven patients developed late postoperative inflammatory reactions of the surgical site with delamination of the implant. Each patient required an aggressive irrigation and débridement with removal of the delaminated hydroxyapatite. Pathologic findings showed evidence of a foreign body inflammatory reaction in the tissue, and mixed bacterial flora were identified in all specimens. No late problems with the cement were seen in patients without a communication to the sinuses. Our findings suggest that the use of BoneSource, an essentially nonviable, nonvascularized implant, in areas exposed to bacterial contamination is contraindicated in the pediatric population. BoneSource and other similar hydroxyapatite biomaterials do have a role as implants in the craniofacial skeleton. The indications and contraindications of these substances will need to be further defined for wide acceptance to occur.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".