Virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery with the use of patient-specific plates compared with conventional plates. A systematic review focusing on complications, financial expenses, professional and patient-reported outcome measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthognathic surgery is a well-known surgical procedure for correction of facial deformities. The surgical procedure is performed by the use of conventional plates and by patient-specific osteosynthesis plates (PSOPs). The aim of this study is to investigate any differences in complications, financial expenses, professional and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in orthognathic surgery performed by conventional plates and by PSOPs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library search was conducted. Human studies published in English through August 27, 2020 were included. Grey literature, unpublished literature as well as other databases like Scopus, Google Scholar, or Research Gate were also included in the search strategy of the present systematic review. Randomized and controlled clinical trials were included. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five studies with unclear risk of bias and moderate quality were included. Meta-analysis was not applicable due to considerable heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in intra- and postoperative complications or professional and PROM with the two treatment modalities, although higher tendencies to reoperations were observed with conventional plates. Financial expenses were significantly higher with PSOP, but treatment planning and intraoperative time were shortened by approximately one third compared with mock surgery and conventional plates. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in complications, professional and PROM. Higher financial expenses were recorded in orthognathic surgery performed with PSOP. Treatment planning and intraoperative time were shortened with the use of conventional plates. Although further randomized trials are needed before definite conclusions can be provided about beneficial use of PSOPs in orthognathic surgery from a professional and patient perspective.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".