Mandibular reconstruction using nonvascularized autogenous bone grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper will discuss reconstruction of the mandible with autogenous nonvascularized bone grafting. New developments in this area will be investigated by reviewing the most recent literature on this topic as compared with other techniques currently employed. With the advances of vascularized free flap reconstruction it is important to investigate the indication for nonvascularized techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Replacement of a portion of the mandibular bone is a common procedure for patients undergoing ablative cancer surgery or for infection as well as temporomandibular joint replacement secondary to disease or trauma. The subject of mandibular reconstruction has seen great advances in recent years with the advent of vascularized free tissue transfer. Other newer areas of mandibular replacement include tissue engineering and distraction osteogenesis. Traditional nonvascularized autogenous bone graft replacement can still play a vital role in rehabilitating these patients. SUMMARY: Although vascularized free flap reconstruction of mandibular defects has become the more common method of treating the postablative cancer surgery patient, there remain indications for nonvascularized reconstruction of mandibular defects as well as other techniques.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".