The Influence of the Insertion Angle on Middle and Lower Face Tissue-Mechanics When Treating the Nasolabial Folds with Facial Suspension Threads—An Experimental Split-Face Cadaveric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel treatment approach to address the nasolabial fold is the insertion facial suspension threads. However, there is a paucity of data available to guide insertion techniques and material selection. Three female and two male cephalic specimens of Caucasian ethnicity (73.6 ± 6.5 years; 21.41 ± 2.2 kg/m2) were included into this experimental split-face study. One facial side was treated with polycaprolactone (PCL) thread: 180 mm, bidirectional, 18G 100 mm cannula, 20 degrees trajectory, preauricular approach whereas the contralateral side was treated with polydioxanone (PDO) thread: 100 mm, bidirectional, 19G, 60 mm cannula, 50 degrees trajectory, infraorbital approach. Three-dimensional imaging outcome measures included vertical and horizontal skin displacement and volume changes at the nasolabial sulcus, at the labiomandibular sulcus, and along the jawline. Comparing PCL 180 mm 20 degrees to PDO 100 mm 50 degrees: vertical lifting effect 1.42 ± 2.63 mm versus 1.24 ± 1.88 mm (p = 0.906); horizontal lifting effect 3.42 ± 1.44 mm versus –2.02 ± 1.84 mm (p = 0.001); nasolabial volume change –0.80 ± 0.65 mL versus –0.52 ± 0.17 mL (p = 0.367); labiomandibular volume change –0.45 ± 0.42 mL versus –0.16 ± 0.16 mL (p = 0.191); jawline volume change 0.02 ± 0.43 mL versus –0.01 ± 0.21 mL (p = 0.892). The study provides objective evidence for the short-term effectiveness of facial suspension threads in treating the nasolabial folds. The results point toward a better aesthetic outcome when utilizing long facial suspension threads that can effect full-face changes as compared with short facial suspension threads.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".