MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1589977282 · doi:10.1111/cid.12041

Combined Osteotome‐Induced Ridge Expansion and Guided Bone Regeneration Simultaneous with Implant Placement: A Biometric Study

2013· article· en· W1589977282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roni Kolerman, Joseph Nissan, Haim Tal

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteotomeMedicineDentistryImplantEdentulismAlveolar ridgeRidgeOrthodonticsOsteotomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term outcome of a single-step ridge expansion osteotome procedure and implant placement combined with guided bone regeneration in patients presenting narrow maxillary alveolar ridges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the period 1999 to 2010, 41 patients aged 19 to 77 years (18 males; 23 females) suffering from partial or full edentulism associated with horizontal resorption of the maxillary ridges (2.5-5 mm) were treated using the combined ridge expansion and guided bone-regeneration techniques to obtain an improved bony base for implant placement. Implant survival, bone width measurements, clinical and radiologic implant success, and clinical complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Achievement of primary stability of the implant was impossible at six sites; these were recorded as failures. In the remaining 35 patients, one hundred sixteen endosseous titanium implants were simultaneously placed. Follow-up time varied between 6 and 144 months (mean 52.4); of these, 36% were followed up for periods of time longer than 60 months. Implant diameter and lengths varied between 3.3 to 4.8 and 12 to 16 mm, respectively. In the 35 successful procedures (one hundred sixteen implants), the overall implant survival rate was 100%. An average gain in ridge width was 3.5 ± 0.93 (p < .0001) and an average enlargement of the buccal bone was 1.91 ± 0.6 (p < .0001). The mean vertical mesial bone loss was 1.81 mm ± 1.07 (ranging from 0.3 to 4.2 mm), and the mean vertical distal bone loss was 1.74 mm ± 1.12 (ranging from 0.4 to 4.5 mm). In eight patients (32%), at least one implant presented bone loss of ≥3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we suggest that the combined osteotome-induced ridge expansion and guided bone regeneration simultaneous with implant placement is a reliable procedure with reduced morbidity and may offer an alternative in suitable situations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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