Gaining Adequate Interdental Space with Elastic Separating Rings against Implants: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is clinically challenging to place and restore an implant when the mesio-distal space is limited or reduced at the occlusal plane and/or the bone level. Placing implants in these cases while ignoring the clinical difficulties and compromising treatment could limit the successful outcome. Treatment options include strategic extractions, sectional orthodontics, and minor orthodontic movements. PURPOSE: To discuss the clinical problems and difficulties arising from limited edentulous mesio-distal space interdentally and to present a treatment modality and technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthodontic elastic separating rings are used to open interdental space between teeth and implants, exerting forces against implants for regaining the needed space and restoring implants with ease. RESULTS: The advantages of this technique are illustrated by clinical cases. CONCLUSIONS: Implants placed in limited interdental edentulous ridges may well assist in regaining lost spaces after loading. Neither an orthodontic background nor special instruments are required for this technique.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".