Mitek Anchor–Augmented Static Facial Suspension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Mitek minianchor suture system as an adjunctive procedure for static facial suspension and assess its ability to improve functional and aesthetic outcomes in patients with complete facial paralyses. METHODS: A retrospective review of 5 patients who underwent adjunctive static facial suspension with the Mitek GII minianchor suture system at a tertiary care academic center. A bone anchor in the maxilla connected to 2 suture arms was used. One suture arm elevated the oral commissure on the paralyzed side. The second suture arm adjusted for upper lip segment asymmetry and Cupid's bow deviation, or lateralized the external nasal valve. Outcome was evaluated by photodocumentation and clinical examination. RESULTS: There was an average of 76.9% improvement in vertical symmetry of the oral commissure (range, 43%-100%), an average of 65.0% improvement in horizontal deviation of the Cupid's bow (range, 50%-100%), and an average of 85.3% improvement in symmetry of upper lip segments (range, 67%-100%). All patients experienced improvement in oral-nasal competency. CONCLUSIONS: The Mitek minianchor suture system is a safe and effective adjunctive method to improve facial symmetry and oral-nasal competency in patients with facial paralyses. Its multivector design approximates the ideal positions of key anatomical points of the midface during static facial suspension surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".