Comparison of a Single 2mm Locking Miniplate with Two 2mm Non-Locking Miniplates in Symphysis or Para symphysis Fracture of Mandible
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the treatment success between locking and non-locking miniplates when used for the constructive repair of mandibular symphysis and parasymphysis fractures of the mandible. Study Design and Setting: This study is designed as a quasi-experimental conducted in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Punjab Dental Hospital and De Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. Methodology: This quasi-experimental was conducted in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Punjab Dental Hospital and De Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. It enrolled 60 patients into each group consisting of locking and non-locking variants for a total of 120 participants. The data was evaluated through SPSS version 25 by applying the Chi-square test and one-way ANOVA test. Results: Fracture stability was achieved in of patients in the locking miniplate group compared to in the non-locking group, with statistical significance (p=0.040). The need for additional IMFs was significantly lower in the locking group, with only required additional fixation, compared to the non-locking group (p=0.00095). Pain scores, measured using the VAS, were significantly lower in the locking miniplate group compared to the non-locking group with a p-value of 0.0001. Soft tissue healing was significantly better in the locking group, showing proper healing compared to the non-locking group (p=0.008). Conclusion: The superior locking miniplate design achieves better fracture stability through increased mechanical stability as well as reducing postoperative discomfort and improving the healing of soft tissue structures, thus establishing their advantage over traditional non-locking miniplate methods
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it