Braces Designed Using CAD/CAM Combined or Not With Finite Element Modeling Lead to Effective Treatment and Quality of Life After 2 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) brace design approach, with and without added finite element modeling (FEM) simulations, after 2 years in terms of clinical outcomes, 3D correction, compliance, and quality of life (QoL). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: .: Previous studies demonstrated that braces designed using a combination of CAD/CAM and FEM induced promising in-brace corrections, were lighter, thinner, and covered less trunk surface. Yet, their long-term impact on treatment quality has not been evaluated. METHODS: One-hundred twenty adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients were recruited following Scoliosis Research Society standardized criteria for brace treatment; 61 patients in the first subgroup (CAD) were given braces designed using CAD/CAM; 59 in the second subgroup (CAD-FEM) received braces additionally simulated and refined using a patient-specific FEM built from 3D reconstructions of the spine, rib cage and pelvis. Main thoracic (MT) and thoraco-lumbar/lumbar (TL/L) Cobb angles, sagittal curves, and apical rotations were compared at the initial visit and after 2 years. Patient compliance and QoL were tracked respectively by using embedded temperature sensors and SRS-22r questionnaires. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with CAD-FEM braces and 50 with CAD braces completed the study. Average in-brace correction was 9° MT (8° CAD-FEM, 10° CAD, P = 0.054) and 12° TL/L (same for both subgroups, P = 0.91). Out-of-brace 2-year progression from initial deformity was <4° for all 3D measurements. Sixty-six percent of all cases (30 CAD-FEM, 35 CAD) met the ≤5° curve progression criterion, 83% (38 CAD-FEM, 43 CAD) stayed <45°, and 6% (5 CAD-FEM, 1 CAD) underwent fusion surgery. 3D correction, compliance, and QoL were not significantly different between both subgroups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: After 2 years, patients with braces designed using CAD/CAM with/without FEM had satisfying clinical outcomes (compared to the BrAIST study), 3D corrections, compliance and QoL. A more comprehensive optimization of brace treatment remains to be accomplished. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".