Distraction Osteogenesis for Mandibular Ramus lengthening in Temporomandibular Joint Ankylosis Patients simultaneously with Interposition Gap Arthoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporomandibular joint ankylosis is the most common cause of facial deformity.1-4The main etiology of TMJ ankylosis include trauma and infection3,5.TraditionallyTemporomandibular joint Ankylosis patients had been managed with different treatment options including Gap arthoplasty6,Interpositiongap arthroplasty ,distraction osteogenesis and total joint replacement.To prevent reankylosis interposition of fascia or muscle had been documented and if reconstruction of the joint was needed Alloplastic(sialistic)or Autogenous graft ( Costochondral bone graft) had been used.6, 7,8,9 Costochondral graft is preferred for reconstruction because morphological it is similar to the condyle of mandibleandhas agrowth capacity.9But thisgraft is unpredictable in nature and different results are reported and documented including facial asymmetry, over growth, graft resorption, graft failure and even reankylosis.9 Distraction osteogenesis is a recent treatment method for the correction of hypo plastic mandible in Temporomandibular joint ankylosis patients. By using distraction osteogenesislarge skeletal movements are possible with little or no relapse commonly seen in other orthognathic corrections. In this study of 30 patients all patients were treated with TMJ Interposition gap arthoplasty (interposition of temporalis fascia) followed by the application of distractors at ramus of mandible. Mean age was14.96±4.17 years. Patient’s minimum and maximum age was 8 and 24 years respectively. Gender distribution shows that 15(50%) of the patients were male and 15(50%) were females. Male to female ratio was 1:1.Mean ramus length before distraction was 38.70±7.28 mm with 28-52 mm range. Mean ramus length after distraction osteogenesis was 49.00±8.01 mm. Mean increase in vertical ramus length was 10.26±2.86 mm. Minimum increase was 5mm and maximum increase in vertical ramus length was 15 mm respectively. In this study we were able to achieve increase in ramus length in all patient and only patient require reoperation due to failure of distractor appliance which was replaced successfully.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".