Value of preoperative mandibular plating in reconstruction of the mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative versus intraoperative mandibular contouring using rapid prototyping technology. METHODS: Ten patients requiring mandibular reconstruction had a preoperative mandibular plate contoured to a fabricated 3D mandibular model based on preoperative imaging. A traditional intraoperative plate was also contoured. Two surgeons blinded to the study compared the plates with respect to conformance, surface-area contact, and best overall match. A cost-benefit analysis was then performed. RESULTS: The average time to contour was 867 ± 243 seconds and 833 ± 289 seconds for the preoperative and intraoperative plates, respectively (p = .83). Interobserver analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in conformance (p = .38) or surface area contact (p = .14). In 7 of 9 cases, the preoperative plate was selected for the final reconstruction. In 1 case, an intraoperative plate was not contoured because of the lateral extent of the tumor. CONCLUSION: In cases of mandibular distortion secondary to disease, pathologic fracture or defects involving multiple mandibular subsites this method is particularly advantageous.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".