Immediate Implant Placement into Fresh Extraction Socket in the Mandibular Molar Sites: A Preliminary Study of a Modified Insertion Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant insertion in mandibular molar extraction sockets raises a series of challenges for clinicians. PURPOSE: This preliminary study demonstrates the use of a modified insertion technique of implant placement at the time of mandibular molar extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immediate implants were placed at the time of molar extraction in 20 patients; a sulcular buccal incision with releasing periosteal incisions were made around the mandibular molar to be replaced, and implant insertion into the interseptal/interradicular bone was performed. The remnants of roots were atraumatically extracted, and the bony defects around the implant were grafted with synthetic resorbable bone substitute β- Tricalcium phosphate, and the flap was sutured. Three months later, implants were restored with single crown fixed prostheses. Patients were followed up at 6, 12, and 18 months after insertion using periapical standardized radiographs to monitor the changes in the marginal bone level. RESULTS: Our modified insertion techniques showed an implant survival rate of 95%; one implant failed 4 weeks after insertion. No significant marginal bone loss around the implant was recorded at all times of follow-up. Satisfactory soft issue parameters were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of immediate implant placement with engagement of the interseptal/interradicular bone, atraumatic extraction of remnant roots, and concomitant regenerative therapy showed preliminary favorable outcomes. However, wider application of this technique for longer following up periods is required for further conclusive recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".