MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bone Structure Changes in Iliac Crest Grafts Combined with Implants

2009· article· en· W1574642058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan W. Verhoeven, Jan M. Ruijter, Ronald Koole, Cornelis de Putter, Marco S. Cune

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
KeywordsRadiographyResorptionIliac crestMedicineImplantBone resorptionMandible (arthropod mouthpart)DentistryCortical boneIliac boneAnatomySurgeryBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Remodeling of onlay grafts combined with implants to the mandible results in predictable changes in the graft's radiographic density. We studied the relationship between changes in radiographic density and trabecular structure during the first year after onlay grafting with simultaneous implant placement to the mandible. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in bone structure after onlay grafting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized extraoral radiographs were taken regularly of 16 mandibular sides. Bone structure was measured using the Carl Zeiss Vision KS 400 3.0 imaging system. The parameters studied were trabecular area and perimeter, cavity area and perimeter, end points, branching points, skeleton length, branch angle and direction, and texture. RESULTS: No differences were found between measurements ventrally versus dorsally of the implant, nor close to versus away from the implant. Early cortical changes suggest partial resorption and formation of a more complex structure. In the fourth quarter after surgery, progressive resorption is seen in the graft's upper cortex. In the graft's upper spongiosa, most parameters indicate bone formation during the first postoperative year. Loading-induced structure changes could not yet be found. CONCLUSION: The technique can be used to study changes in the architecture of bone grafts. Changes found in the graft's architecture are in accordance with changes in bone density.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→