Techniques de prélèvement palatin et comorbidités associées : revue systématique de la littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: compare postoperative pain and morbidity between different palatal harvesting techniques. Method: An electronic search was conducted on 4 databases, from June 2024 to October 2024. The quality of Randomized Controlled Trials was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool « Rob 2 ». The retrospective and observational studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: two studies shown no statistical difference in terms of pain between trap-door technique et de-epithelized graft. One study shown statistical difference at 3 days and another study at 7 days, between single incision and de-epithelized graft. No statistical difference between trapdoor and single incision in terms of VAS pain scores. Statistical difference between UPV-EHU technique and trap-door technique in VAS pain scores. Conclusion: the present results failed to show the superiority of one technique to reduce postoperative pain. Other factors should be considered, such as harvesting depth, surgical chair time and proper palatal protection after the harvest.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".