Bilateral Condylar Fracture: A 10-Year Case Report Follow-Up after a Conservative Myofunctional Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular condylar fractures can be approached with invasive techniques, such as surgical repositioning and fixation of the fractured condyle, or with conservative techniques using myofunctional appliances. Recent publications recommend non-invasive or conservative approaches when treating mandibular condylar fractures, as they may produce more stable results and fewer consequences. However, to the knowledge of the authors, there is no long-term follow up publications of clinical cases treated with a conservative approach. This report presents a ten-year follow-up of a case report published two years ago by the same authors. In the previous report, the authors showed an eleven year-old girl treated with a myofunctional appliance due to a bilateral mandibular condylar fracture. The treatment produced a stable result over the following ten years with the patient not using any appliance after the myofunctional treatment was completed. The benefits of a conservative treatment, as well as the consequences of mandibular condylar fracture, such as a heart shaped mandibular condyle, are discussed here by the authors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".