Efficacy of Cyanoacrylate in Intraoral Surgical Wound Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives in the management of intraoral surgical wounds in term of wound healing. Material & Methods: Descriptive case series study. Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore. 6 months i.e. from: 10-08-2017 to 10-02-2018. After meeting the inclusion criteria 140 patients were enrolled. Strict aseptic measures were taken. Tissue glue applied on the incision line in form of drops at equidistant intervals and then allowed to flow and set for 1-2 minutes. The researcher evaluated the efficacy of wound healing clinically on 15‘, 2"d and 7th postoperative day. All the collected data was entered and analyzed on SPSS version 21. Results: The mean age of patients was 34.16±9.57 years. Male to female ratio was 0.79:1. The wound healing was found in 128(91.4%) patients and the efficacy achieved in 128(91.43%) patients. Conclusion: The cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives is efficacious for the management of intraoral surgical wounds in term of wound healing Keywords: Wound Healing, Efficacy, Cyanoacrylate, Surgery
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".