Effect of tissue adhesive Octyl-2-Cyanoacrylate in traumatic facial wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Tissue adhesives have been taken into consideration because they do not need to be removed after wound healing. This study was conducted to compare scars remained by Octyl-2-Cyanoacrylate and sutures in traumatic facial wounds in adults. Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical trial study was performed on 50 patients aged 15-50 years referred to Babol Shahid Beheshti Hospital due to traumatic facial wounds. Written informed consent was obtained for each patient. The patients were divided into two groups. In the first group, patients were treated with 5-0 nylon suture and Octyl-2-Cyanoacrylate was used for wound repairment in second group. The patients were followed up on1, 7, 60 and 120 days after wound healing and assessed by Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and Vancouver criteria to evaluate remaining scar. Also amount of pain intensity was determined by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) criteria, 7 days after wound healing. Data was analyzed by SPSS V16, t-test, Friedman, Chi-square and Man-Whitney-U tests. Results: Twenty-eight (56%) were male and 22(44%) female. There was a significant decreasing trend in Vancouver and POSAS indices during 120 days of study (p<0.001). Based on POSAS and Vancouver criteria there was no significant difference between two groups on the days 1, 60 and 120. However, on day 7, there was significantly better healing result in the adhesive group compared to the suture group. Based on the VAS criteria; the average pain intensity was 4.14±1.16 in sutured group, on 7th day (p=0.00). There was no significant difference in wound closure time between the two groups (p=0.07). Conclusion: Generally, there was no significant difference between the scar left by sutures and tissue adhesives after 120 days.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".