Le Fort III Osteotomy or Distraction Osteogenesis Imperfecta: Your Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional Le Fort III osteotomies have been described by several authors; however, few have reported the distances advanced and stability over time. METHODS: The authors assessed their last 30 Le Fort III osteotomies with respect to the immediate incisor advancement achieved at surgery and long-term advancement as measured at the A-point from preoperative and postoperative cephalometric tracings. The authors then compared their results with those in the literature for Le Fort III distraction techniques. Comparisons were made with respect to distraction distance maintained, the need for bone grafting, airway results, morbidity, and cost. RESULTS: The mean incisor advancement at the time of surgery as recorded in 14 patients was 21.6 mm (range, 12 to 28 mm). The long-term cephalometric A-point measurements in 14 patients demonstrated a mean of 14.14 mm (range, 8 to 25 mm). CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that, at the present time, no significant improvement in the results using Le Fort III distraction osteogenesis when compared with traditional methods has been shown.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".