A Comparison of Anterior vs Posterior Isolated Mandible Fractures Treated With Intermaxillary Fixation Screws
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare complication rates after use of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) bone screws for anterior (ie, symphyseal/parasymphyseal) and posterior (ie, body and angle) mandible fractures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of isolated mandible fractures treated with intraoperative IMF bone screws at 2 major level 1 trauma centers within the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Minnesota. From January 1, 2003, through January 31, 2006, we accrued 53 patients with 67 isolated mandible fractures treated with intraoperative IMF bone screws. These patients had at least 6 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients had anterior mandible fractures and 32 had posterior mandible fractures. In the anterior group, there was 1 incident of wound dehiscence, resulting in a total complication rate of 5%. In the posterior fracture group, there was 1 infection (3%), 4 malunions/malocclusions (12%), and 1 nonunion (3%), for an overall complication rate of 19%. The difference between groups for malocclusion rates (12% vs 0%) was significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The IMF bone screw system has a superior speed and safety profile. It produces better occlusion results in anterior mandible fractures and might have a lower overall complication rate compared with arch bars. Given this, IMF bone screws are the preferred modality of intermaxillary fixation in properly selected mandible fractures.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it