Marginal Bone‐Level Alterations at Implants Installed in Block versus Particulate Onlay Bone Grafts Mixed with Platelet‐Rich Plasma in Atrophic Maxilla. A Prospective 5‐Year Follow‐Up Study of 15 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extensive atrophy of the alveolar process may require a bone-grafting procedure prior to implant treatment. Autogenous bone grafts from the iliac crest, used as onlay block and particulate bone, have been used together with sinus-lift procedure in order to rehabilitate patients with extremely resorbed maxillae. However, there are to our knowledge no 5-year follow-up studies evaluating the extent of bone-level change in patients treated with respectively block and particulate autogenous bone grafts. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to conduct a 5-year follow-up analysis with focus on bone-level alteration in block versus particulate onlay bone grafts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen out of originally 19 patients who were treated with iliac bone grafts and oral implants in the maxilla have been followed through the first 5 postoperative years. In a first study conducted on 19 patients, the role of platelet-rich plasma in conjunction with autogenous bone was evaluated. In this 5-year follow-up study, the marginal bone alterations have been documented at base line, 1 year and 5 years of loading to the nearest 0,1 mm at mesial and distal surfaces of the implants. Two implants were installed on each side of the midline in either block or particulate bone grafts giving test and control sides in each patient. Additionally, two implants on each side were installed in residual bone/grafted sinus floor. RESULT: Marginal bone alteration in the anterior maxilla appeared larger at the side augmented by block bone at baseline, and after 1 and 5 years of loading, but the change was not statistically significant. Moreover, there was a significantly higher degree of marginal alteration during the first year of loading, compared with the examinations after 5 years. CONCLUSION: The present follow-up study showed that there is no significant difference in the extension of resorption between block- and particulate autogenous bone grafts over a 5-year period. Most of the resorption occurred during the first year in function.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".