Long Term Follow‐Up of Dental Implants Placed in Autologous Onlay Bone Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of autologous intraoral onlay bone grafting (OBG) in correlation with long-term survival rates of dental implants placed in the augmented bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 214 patients who received a total of 633 dental implants placed in 224 autologous intraoral block OBG augmentations, combined with Bio-Oss - mixed with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and covered by platelet-poor plasma (PPP) - as scaffold, with a follow-up time up to 137 months (mean 39.9 ± 30.9 months). RESULTS: A total of 216 OBG cases were successful (96.4%), and most of the augmentations were uneventful (88.4%). Bone graft exposure was moderately associated with bone graft failure (χ(2) = 3.76, p = .052). The healing period after implant placement was 4-6 months (mean 5.6 ± 2.56). The majority of the 591 implants survived (93.4%). The cumulative survival rate of the implants was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that augmentation of severely atrophied jaw bone through the placement of horizontal and/or vertical intraoral OBGs in combination with Bio-Oss saturated with PRP and covered by PPP should be considered a reliable, safe, and very effective surgical technique for obtaining high bone graft survival rate and high long-term implant survival rate.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".