Does the Animal Model Influence in Vertical Alveolar Distraction? A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is aimed at synthesizing all available evidence on vertical alveolar osteogenesis distraction (VAOD) in animal trials to determine whether the animal model used and its handling influence or not, and find which is the most appropriate animal model for this specific technique. This systematic review has been carried out following the PRISMA statements. Bibliographic sources have been consulted manually by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using a version of the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale (NOS). The selection criteria established by expert researchers were applied in order to decide which studies should be included in the review. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Twenty-four of them had a high quality (score between 7 and 9), two medium quality (score between 4 and 6), and none low quality (score between 1 and 3). The highest possible score was 9 (using the NOS). Six studies complied with all NOS criteria. The animal model has been seen to influence the results, leading to failure in some cases. The most used animal model on VAOD, with fewer complications, was the Mongrel dog. The use of the pig and minipig is not recommended, due to the difficulties in handling and complications encountered.
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 | 0.021 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".