Nerve to the zygomaticus major muscle: An anatomical study and surgical application to smile reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smile reconstruction using the branches that supply the zygomaticus major muscle as a motor source is an established procedure in facial reanimation surgery for facial paralysis. However, the anatomy of the nerve to the muscle remains unclear. Therefore, we herein examined the topographical anatomy of the nerve to the zygomaticus major muscle to obtain more detailed information on donor nerve anatomy. Preserved cadaver dissection was performed under a microscope on 13 hemifaces of 8 specimens. The branches that innervate the zygomaticus major muscle and their peripheral routes medial to the muscle were traced and examined. A median of four (ranges 2-4) branches innervated the zygomaticus major muscle. The proximal two branches (near the muscle origin) arose from the zygomatic branch, the second of which was the major branch. The distal branches (near the oral commissure) arose from the buccal branch or zygomaticobuccal plexus. The vertical distance from the caudal margin of the zygomatic arch to the major branch intersecting point was 19 ± 4.0 mm, while the horizontal distance parallel to the Frankfort plane was 29 ± 5.2 mm. The proximal two branches innervating the zygomaticus major muscle were detected in the majority of specimens. The anatomical findings obtained herein on the nerve to the zygomaticus major muscle will allow for more reliable donor selection in facial reanimation surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".