Block Allograft Technique versus Standard Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the potential of deproteinized bovine bone added to autologous bone or corticocancellous allograft block with or without the addition of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB) to regenerate mandibular atrophic ridges. TRIAL DESIGN: parallel, allocation ratio of 1:1 using a split-mouth model. Eligibility criteria for patients: adult patients; bilateral atrophic edentulous areas in the posterior area of the mandible; a preoperatory cone beam computed tomography scan; and absence of systemic diseases affecting the bone metabolism. Bone graft intervention for control group consisted of bone chips collected with a scraper mixed with deproteinized bovine bone covered with a resorbable membrane. Bone graft intervention for test group consisted of a corticocancellous allograft block, shaped before surgery, and protected with a collagen membrane. In addition, both groups received rhPDGF-BB or a saline solution as control. As primary outcome quantity, bone variation after a 1-year healing period was considered. A p-value of.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled in this trial. A total of 50 implants and 32 bone grafts were placed. All patients concluded the study (no dropouts). Change at 1 year in bone volume was not significantly different between the two groups (p-value = .25). Effect of treatment in terms of change in bone volume at 1 year was not significant (p-value = .89) when saline solution was used while was at limit of significance when rhPDGF-BB was used (p-value = .052). After 1 year, all the implants were successfully integrated. CONCLUSIONS: The block allograft and the standard regenerative procedure showed similar results in terms of regenerated bone volume after 1 year of functional loading. The rhPDGF-BB positively influenced soft-tissue healing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".