Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant size and configuration on osseointegration in implants immediately placed into extraction sockets. Material and methods: Implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets in the mandibles of six Labrador dogs. In the control sites, cylindrical transmucosal implants (3.3 mm diameter) were installed, while in the test sites, larger and conical (root formed, 5 mm diameter) implants were installed. After 4 months of healing, the resorptive patterns of the alveolar crest were evaluated histomorphometrically. Results: With one exception, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone, mainly composed of mature lamellar bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at the control as well as at the test implants. This resorption was more pronounced at the buccal aspects and significantly greater at the test (2.7±0.4 mm) than at the control implants (1.5±0.6 mm). However, the control implants were associated with residual defects that were deeper at the lingual than at the buccal aspects, while these defects were virtually absent at test implants. Conclusions: The installment of root formed wide implants immediately into extraction sockets will not prevent the resorption of the alveolar crest. In contrast, this resorption is more marked both at the buccal and lingual aspects of root formed wide than at standard cylindrical implants. To cite this article: Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Bressan E, Botticelli D, Lang NP. Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs. Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 21 , 2010; 885–895. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01931.x
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".