A minimally invasive method for titanium mesh fixation with resorbable sutures in guided bone regeneration: A retrospective study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Titanium mesh has become a mainstream choice for guided bone regeneration (GBR) owing to its excellent space maintenance. However, the traditional fixation method using titanium screws impacts surgery efficiency and increases patient trauma. We report a novel method of fixing a titanium mesh using resorbable sutures. We assessed the feasibility of resorbable sutures for fixing a titanium mesh and whether it can serve as a stable, universal, and minimally invasive fixation method for a broader application of titanium meshes. METHODS: Patients undergoing GBR with a digital titanium mesh fixed using titanium screws (TS group) and resorbable sutures (RS group) were observed at different time points. The stability of the fixation methods was evaluated on parameters such as titanium mesh spatial displacement, bone augmentation, and bone resorption. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were included in this study. The exposure rate of the titanium mesh in the TS group was 16.67%, while no exposure was noted in the RS group. There was no significant difference in the parameters of titanium mesh spatial displacement, bone augmentation, and bone resorption between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of resorbable sutures for fixing a titanium mesh can achieve similar results to traditional fixation using titanium screws. Although this new fixation method can improve the efficiency of the surgery and reduce the risk of complications, the long-term clinical effects require further follow-up investigation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it