Revascularized tissue transplant and internal transport disk distraction osteogenesis for the reconstruction of complex composite mandibular defects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of internal transport disk distraction osteogenesis (ITDDO) for the regeneration of segmental mandibular defects and to evaluate the effect of radiation therapy. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical centre. METHODS: Nine patients were accrued (M:F 6:3; mean age 63 years, range 37-77 years) and underwent ITDDO for the regeneration of segmental mandibular defects. The mean follow-up time was 43 months (range 6-87 months). The average bony defect was 6.1 cm (range 3.0-10.0 cm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Construct formation (graded as complete, partial, and none based on evidence of calcification on panorex films and palpation), complications, and plate exposure (grouped by those that were thought to be related to distraction and those that were independent of distraction). RESULTS: Construct formation was "complete" in two of nine patients (22%), "partial" in four of nine (44%), "none" in two of nine (22%), and one of nine patients (11%) died prior to the 6 month assessment point. Four patients did not undergo radiation therapy, and two had stable constructs 6 years after treatment completion. Five patients underwent radiation therapy, and none of these patients formed stable, ossified constructs. All patients experienced a complication, and seven of nine (78%) developed hardware exposure, with six contributing to construct loss. CONCLUSIONS: Construct formation with ITDDO is possible for large composite mandibular defects in patients who have not received radiation. The complication rate was unacceptably high but may improve with better patient selection, refinement in surgical technique and distractor design, and tissue engineering for construct support.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".