Génioplastie fonctionnelle chez les patients en croissance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective - To evaluate the role of age as a moderator of bone regeneration patterns and symphysis remodeling after genioplasty. Method - Fifty-four patients who underwent genioplasty at the end of their orthodontic treatment were divided into three age groups: younger than 15 years at the time of surgery (group 1), 15 to 19 years (group 2), and 20 years or older (group 3). Twenty-three patients who did not accept genioplasty and had a follow-up radiograph two years after the end of their orthodontic treatment were used as a control group. Patients were evaluated at three time points: immediate preoperative (T1), immediate postoperative (T2) and two years postsurgery (T3). Results - The mean genial advancement at surgery was similar for the three age groups, but the extent of remodeling around the repositioned chin was greater in group 1, less in group 2, and still less in group 3. Symphysis thickness increased significantly during the two-years postsurgery interval for the three groups, and this increase was significantly greater in group 1 than in group 3. Remodeling above and behind the repositioned chin also was greater in the younger patients. This was related to greater vertical growth of the dentoalveolar process in the younger patients. There was no evidence of a deleterious effect on mandibular growth. Conclusion - The outcomes of forward-upward genioplasty include increased symphysis thickness, bone apposition above B point, and remodeling at the inferior border. When indications for this type of genioplasty are recognized, early surgical correction (before age 15) produces a better outcome in terms of bone remodeling.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".