MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resolution of bone defects of varying dimension and configuration in the marginal portion of the peri‐implant bone

2004· article· en· W1588564868 on OpenAlex
Daniele Botticelli, Tord Berglundh, Jan Lindhe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Of Clinical Periodontology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersITI Foundation
KeywordsImplantOsseointegrationDentistryMaterials scienceMolarOrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It was demonstrated that a marginal defect of about 1 mm between the bone wall and the metal surface after implant installation can heal with a high degree of bone fill and osseointegration. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present animal experiment was to study bone healing at implant sites with hard tissue defects of varying dimensions and configuration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four Labrador dogs were used. All mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted. After 3 months of healing, five experimental sites, two control (C1, C2) and three test (T1, T2, T3) sites, were identified. In all five sites, custom-made implants with a sand-blasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) surface and with an outer dimension of 3.3x10 mm, were used. In site C1, traditional implant installation was performed. In site C2, the marginal 5 mm of the canal, prepared for the implant, was widened to 5.3 mm using a step-drill. Thus, following the installation of the implant, a circumferential gap occurred between the bone tissue and the metal rod that was 5 mm deep and between 1 and 1.25 mm wide. In test site T1, the canal was widened to establish a marginal gap of 2-2.25 mm. In test sites T2 and T3, the marginal 5 mm of the canal was first widened to 5.3 mm (T2) or 7.3 mm (T3). The buccal bone wall opposite the defect was subsequently removed. Following the placement of a cover screw in sites C2, T1, T2, and T3, a resorbable membrane was placed over the defect. All implants were submerged. After 4 months of healing, block biopsies of each implant site were dissected and processed for ground sectioning. RESULTS: The observations disclosed that four-wall defects of different dimensions (1-2.25 mm wide) that occurred in the marginal portion of the recipient sites following implant installation were resolved during healing. Further, at sites where the buccal bone wall during defect preparation was intentionally removed, healing resulted in defect resolution at the mesial, distal, and lingual aspects. At the buccal aspects, healing was incomplete but the dimension of the defect was reduced by the limited amounts of new bone formation extending from the lateral and apical borders of the defect. CONCLUSION: Wide marginal defects may during healing be filled with bone. In such defects a high degree of osseointegration may occur to implants designed with an SLA surface.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.322 · 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