Biomechanical Impact of a Zygoma Complex Fracture Using Human Cadaver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures are common in midface trauma, with treatment often involving repair using titanium mini plates. However, the need for plate fixation along the zygomaticomaxillary suture on the infraorbital rim remains controversial. This study utilized a previously reported bite force simulator to investigate craniofacial strain patterns following zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture repairs with and without plating of the infraorbital rim. Osteotomies were made to 6 fresh-frozen cadaveric heads to simulate 2 types of zygomatic complex fractures: a dipod fracture with osteotomies at the zygomaticofrontal and zygomaticomaxillary sutures, and a tripod fracture with an additional osteotomies at the zygomaticotemporal suture. Repairs with and without the use of a titanium mini plate across the infraorbital rim were compared in both dipod and tripod fractures. Physiologically proportional masticatory loads were applied using the bite force simulator by actuating intrinsic muscle lines of action. The outcome metric was facial bone strains measured using uniaxial strain gauges. Mixed-effects linear models did not find a significant main effect on the overall strain pattern with the use of an infraorbital rim plate in both dipod (P = 0.198) and tripod (P = 0.117) fracture repairs. However, statistically significant differences were found locally at the zygomatic buttress (P = 0.019) and the zygomatic arch (P = 0.027) on the fractured side in dipod fractures. This is the first known study that successfully utilized a mechanical simulator to reproduce physiological intrinsic masticatory loads in a fracture fixation study. This new technology opens avenues for future biomechanical investigations on maxillofacial fracture repairs and other surgical treatments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".