Lateral oromandibular defect: When is it appropriate to use a bridging reconstruction plate combined with a soft tissue revascularized flap?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A quasi-experimental retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate a new concept of free tissue volume restoration combined with bridging reconstruction plate (compartment approach) to reduce plate-related complication rates. METHODS: We evaluated 40 patients with large lateral mandible defects and associated complex soft tissue defects reconstructed with a revascularized soft tissue flap and titanium hollow screw reconstruction plates. A case-control comparison was performed based on reconstruction type: restoration of soft tissue defect (conventional approach-group 1) versus over-reconstruction of soft tissue defect (compartment approach-group 2). RESULTS: Plate exposure rate was 6 of 16 (38%) in group 1 versus 2 of 24 (8%) in group 2, and the difference was statistically significant (p = .04). The mean time to exposure was 10 months. Plate fracture rate was 6 of 23 (26.1%) in dentulous patients versus 1 of 17 (5.9%) in edentulous patients. Gastrostomy tube dependence was 6 of 16 (38%) in group 1 versus 6 of 24 (25%) in group 2. CONCLUSION: The "compartment approach" reduces plate exposure rate and gastrostomy tube dependence. Revascularized osseocutaneous reconstruction is still required in dentulous patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".