MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412421441 · doi:10.3390/cmtr18030033

Matrix WaveTM System for Mandibulo-Maxillary Fixation—Just Another Variation on the MMF Theme?—Part II: In Context to Self-Made Hybrid Erich Arch Bars and Commercial Hybrid MMF Systems—Literature Review and Analysis of Design Features

2025· review· en· W4412421441 on OpenAlexaff
Carl‐Peter Cornelius, Paris Liokatis, T. P. Doerr, Damir B. Matic, Stefano Fusetti, Michael Rasse, Nils‐Claudius Gellrich, Max Heiland, Warren Schubert, Daniel Buchbinder

Bibliographic record

VenueCraniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchContext (archaeology)Theme (computing)Computer scienceEngineeringBiologyStructural engineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Trends in the utilization of Mandibulo-Maxillary Fixation (MMF) are shifting nowadays from tooth-borne devices over specialized screws to hybrid MMF devices. Hybrid MMF devices come in self-made Erich arch bar modifications and commercial hybrid MMF systems (CHMMFSs). OBJECTIVE: We survey the available technical/clinical data. Hypothetically, the risk of tooth root damage by transalveolar screws is diminished by a targeting function of the screw holes/slots. METHODS: We utilize a literature review and graphic displays to disclose parallels and dissimilarities in design and functionality with an in-depth look at the targeting properties. RESULTS: Self-made hybrid arch bars have limitations to meet low-risk interradicular screw insertion sites. Technical/clinical information on CHMMFSs is unevenly distributed in favor of the SMARTLock System: positive outcome variables are increased speed of application/removal, the possibility to eliminate wiring and stick injuries and screw fixation with standoff of the embodiment along the attached gingiva. Inferred from the SMARTLock System, all four CHMMFs possess potential to effectively prevent tooth root injuries but are subject to their design features and targeting with the screw-receiving holes. The height profile and geometry shape of a CHMMFS may restrict three-dimensional spatial orientation and reach during placement. To bridge between interradicular spaces and tooth equators, where hooks or tie-up-cleats for intermaxillary cerclages should be ideally positioned under biomechanical aspects, can be problematic. The movability of their screw-receiving holes according to all six degrees of freedom differs. CONCLUSION: CHMMFSs allow simple immobilization of facial fractures involving dental occlusion. The performance in avoiding tooth root damage is a matter of design subtleties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCraniomaxillofacial Trauma & ReconstructionSame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207