Comparison of Single- Versus Dual-Vector Technique Using Facial Suspension Threads: A Cadaveric Study Using Skin Vector Displacement Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facial suspension threads have been successfully used for facial soft-tissue repositioning. When using facial suspension threads, it is unclear which technique and/or material has the greatest lifting effect for the middle and lower face or which technique/material best reduces the appearance of the jowls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three female and 2 male cephalic specimens of Caucasian ethnicity (65.2 ± 8.3 years; 20.72 ± 2.6 kg/m) were analyzed in an upright secured position. Polydioxanone and polycaprolactone bidirectional barbed facial suspension threads were introduced by an 18 G, 100 mm cannula. The single-vector technique aimed toward the labiomandibular sulcus, and the dual-vector technique aimed toward the labiomandibular sulcus and the mandibular angle. Computation of vertical lifting, horizontal lifting, and volume reduction at the jowls and along the jawline were calculated using 3D imaging. RESULTS: The dual-vector technique effected a greater vertical lifting effect (4.45 ± 2.78 mm vs 2.99 ± 2.23 mm) but a reduced horizontal lifting effect (0.33 ± 1.34 mm vs 0.49 ± 1.32 mm). The dual-vector technique effected less volume reduction at the jowls 0.32 ± 0.24 cc versus 0.41 ± 0.46 cc and less volume reduction along the jawline 0.46 ± 0.48 cc versus 0.87 ± 0.53 cc (dual-vector vs single-vector). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence resulting from cadaveric observations for the overall nonsuperiority of the dual-vector technique compared with the single-vector technique.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".