Comparisons of Outcomes of Chin Implantation Using the Transoral Versus Submental Technique: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chin implantation is a commonly performed facial plastic surgery procedure. There are 2 approaches to this procedure: submental and transoral. There is no consensus as to which is the best and safest approach. Objective: The objective of this review is to ascertain the risks and benefits of using an intraoral versus submental approach for chin implantation. Methods: A systematic review of all articles published in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed from 1966 to 2020. Results: A total of 1410 articles were reviewed and 38 were chosen for the review based on predetermined selection criteria. Total complication rates in the transoral group ranged from 0% to 14.7%, whereas total complication rates in the submental group ranged from 0% to 15%. No clear difference in the rates of any specific complication was found between the 2 groups. Conclusion: There is no demonstrated difference in complication rates between the 2 approaches to chin implantation. Individual patient assessment and surgeon preference remain the most important determinants of surgical approach.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".