MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Morbidity after Chin Bone Harvesting – A Retrospective Long‐Term Follow‐Up Study

2008· article· en· W2078097995 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinMedicineDentistryRetrospective cohort studyTerm (time)OrthodonticsSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Resorption of the alveolar bone after tooth extraction may result in insufficient bone volume for implant placement. Augmentation of the resorbed site using autogenous bone grafts harvested from the maxillofacial region, for example, the chin, is a common method; however, it also involves donor site morbidity. Chin graft morbidity involves impaired sensibility in the frontal teeth, the gingival, and skin postoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 60 patients with partial edentulism in the maxilla and insufficient bone volume for implant therapy were augmented with bone grafts from the mandibular symphysis. The grafting procedure was performed between 1991 and 2001 with a follow-up period of 1 year after surgery. Postoperative sensibility of the lip, teeth, and gingiva was registered. Forty-six patients (18 women and 28 men) also participated in a long-term follow-up study. The mean age was 49 years (range 23-81 years) and the mean follow-up time was 7.5 years (range 4-14 years). The donor site was evaluated in four parts: a standardized clinical examination, radiographic examination and measurements, a mail-in questionnaire, and a survey of the medical records regarding complications and graft size. In the donor site, both hard tissue (mandibular symphysis and teeth) and soft tissue (ie, lower lip, infralabial area, and chin) were evaluated. A questionnaire was also answered by 38 of 46 patients. RESULTS: In the long-term follow-up, impaired tactility and sensitivity of the soft tissues were registered in 7.6%. Adjacent teeth (incisors, canines, first and second premolar) (n = 418), showed increased lamina dura in seven cases (1.7%) and four teeth had apical pathology (1.0%). The donor site (n = 45) showed good remineralization in 42 patients (93.3%), and 28 patients (62.2%) had a noticeable concavity radiologically. The questionnaires from 38 patients (answer frequency 82.3%) rated high satisfaction with the grafting and implant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that long-term follow-up of the chin graft donor site shows some postoperative morbidity. The most frequent disturbance was impaired sensibility in the soft tissues of the chin. The lower lip and teeth showed fewer disturbances. The rate of subjective symptoms was higher than the clinical findings but did, in general, not affect the patient in daily life. At radiographic examination, bone healing after chin graft harvesting did not regenerate to the preoperative level. The donor site showed good remineralization but left a radiologic concavity in the majority of cases.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.290 · 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