MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390571709 · doi:10.1007/s00405-023-08392-0

Computer-aided designed 3D-printed polymeric scaffolds for personalized reconstruction of maxillary and mandibular defects: a proof-of-concept study

2024· article· en· W4390571709 on OpenAlexaff
Davide Mattavelli, Vincenzo Verzeletti, Alberto Deganello, Antonio Fiorentino, Tommaso Gualtieri, Marco Ferrari, Stefano Taboni, William Anfuso, Marco Ravanelli, Vittorio Rampinelli, Alberto Grammatica, Barbara Buffoli, Roberto Maroldi, Elisabetta Ceretti, Rita Rezzani, Piero Nicolai, Cesare Piazza

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Brescia
KeywordsScaffoldCadaver3d printedFixation (population genetics)Computer scienceBiomedical engineeringOrthodonticsMaterials scienceDentistryMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential reconstruction of complex maxillofacial defects using computer-aided design 3D-printed polymeric scaffolds by defining the production process, simulating the surgical procedure, and explore the feasibility and reproducibility of the whole algorithm. METHODS: This a preclinical study to investigate feasibility, reproducibility and efficacy of the reconstruction algorithm proposed. It encompassed 3 phases: (1) scaffold production (CAD and 3D-printing in polylactic acid); (2) surgical simulation on cadaver heads (navigation-guided osteotomies and scaffold fixation); (3) assessment of reconstruction (bone and occlusal morphological conformance, symmetry, and mechanical stress tests). RESULTS: Six cadaver heads were dissected. Six types of defects (3 mandibular and 3 maxillary) with different degree of complexity were tested. In all case the reconstruction algorithm could be successfully completed. Bone morphological conformance was optimal while the occlusal one was slightly higher. Mechanical stress tests were good (mean value, 318.6 and 286.4 N for maxillary and mandibular defects, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our reconstructive algorithm was feasible and reproducible in a preclinical setting. Functional and aesthetic outcomes were satisfactory independently of the complexity of the defect.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-LaryngologySame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207