Orthognathic Surgery in Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mandible advancement osteotomy in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis patients for class II anterior open-bite malocclusion is controversial; however, there is no literature discussing outcomes of surgery in this group of patients. An evaluation of such outcomes was undertaken at The Hospital for Sick Children. METHODS: A retrospective chart review revealed that eight patients with juvenile arthritis underwent orthognathic surgery during a period of 5 years. All of the patients had a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible, six had a simultaneous Le Fort I osteotomy, and four had an additional advancement genioplasty. The age of the patients at the time of surgery ranged between 17 and 22 years (mean, 18 years), with three male patients and five female patients. The patients were under follow-up for a minimum of 8 months after surgery, and measurements were performed studying preoperative and postoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs. RESULTS: All patients have an improved occlusion and improved facial aesthetics. One patient continued to suffer from temporomandibular joint pain. The mean mandible advancement was 9.6 mm (range, 3.9 to 18.3 mm). The mean mandible relapse after surgery was 2.1 mm (range, 1 to 3.1 mm). No exacerbation of the juvenile rheumatoid arthritis was encountered as a result of the surgical procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Orthognathic surgery in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis patients improves the patient's occlusion, facial aesthetics, and therefore quality of life. The relapse rate postoperatively did not significantly affect the clinical outcome, and the authors recommend orthognathic surgery for this patient population. Future presurgical plans in this patient population will include a small posterior open bite and positioning the incisors edge to edge to allow for some postoperative relapse.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".