Comparative Study of two Flap Designs on Postoperative Sequelae after Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of current study was to have comparison between the postoperative outcomes of triangular (wards) flap versus an envelope flap after surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molar. Methods: Current study was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Oral & Maxillofacial surgery, Fatima Memorial Hospital, Lahore. Sixty patients were randomly recruited in two groups with random number table. Both groups consisted of 30 patients each. Among the patients of Group A, envelope flap was used for surgical access whereas patients of Group B received triangular flap for surgical access. Both Groups were followed on 2nd and 7th day postoperatively for pain status and trismus. Results: Mean±SD of pain score at postoperative day 7th for group A was 23.47±6.75 and for group B it was 24.03±10.5 which was statistically insignificant (p>0.05). The difficulty index was found to have statistically significant (P<0.05) on 7th postoperative day pain. On the 7th postoperative day group A (envelope flap) had a mouth opening mean of 41.03mm and group B (triangular flap) which had a mean of 40.47mm which was statistically insignificant (p>0.05). The difficulty index was found to have statistically significant effect (P<0.05) on 7th postoperative day Conclusion: The study concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between the two flap designs on postoperative pain and trismus while the difficulty of impaction was found to have statistically significant effect on postoperative pain and trismus Keywords: envelope flap, triangular flap, trismus
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".