Comprehensive Long-Term Outcomes Following Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe long-term outcomes and complications following mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) in a diverse patient cohort Design Cross-sectional study Setting Single tertiary-care pediatric center Patients Forty-eight patients previously undergoing MDO with minimum 4-year follow-up Main Outcome Measures Respiratory outcomes, feeding patterns, dental development, motor/sensory nerve function, temporo-mandibular joint function, and postsurgical scarring Results Forty-six patients with a median age of 7 years were evaluated. Of 20 nonsyndromic patients, none required additional airway procedures, none required continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep, and 19 (95%) fed exclusively by mouth. Among 26 syndromic patients, 7 (27%) required CPAP and 8 (31%) were tube fed. Permanent first molar differences were seen in the majority of subjects; patterns of damage interfering with function were more common in syndromic (13/28, 46%) compared to nonsyndromic (5/24, 21%; P = .014) subjects. MDO prior to age two was associated with more frequent and worse dental damage ( P = .001). Inferior alveolar nerve and marginal mandibular nerve function were fully intact in 37 (80%) and 39 (85%) of patients, respectively. Three patients (6%), all with associated genetic syndromes, demonstrated severe nerve impairment. By the Vancouver scar scale, ≥ 80% of surgical scars were rated in the most favorable category for each quality assessed. Temporomandibular joint dysfunction was rare. Conclusions MDO shows highly favorable long-term respiratory, feeding, nerve, and scar outcomes in nonsyndromic patients, although permanent molar changes not precluding tooth viability are commonly seen. Patients with associated syndromes demonstrate respiratory and feeding benefits, but higher rates of dental and nerve abnormalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".