Fresh‐Frozen Bone Blocks for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the Upper Maxilla: 6‐Month Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled trial compared fresh-frozen versus autologous bone blocks for maxillary horizontal ridge augmentation in patients with Cawood and Howell class IV atrophies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients were allocated to the autologous and fresh-frozen groups in a 1:1 ratio. Patients underwent computed tomography scans 1 week and 6 months after surgery for graft volume and density analysis. Doxycycline was administered at day 120 and day 150 to label new bone formation. Biopsy for histologic and histomorphometric analyses was performed at reentry for implant insertion, 6 months after grafting. RESULTS: Fresh-frozen grafts had lower density than autologous bone. Autologous and fresh-frozen grafts lost, respectively, 25% and 52% of their initial volume (p = .0041). Histology revealed the presence of newly formed bone within both graft types, but clear signs of inflammation were present in fresh-frozen blocks. CONCLUSIONS: According to these 6-month results, autologous bone blocks are preferable to fresh-frozen bone grafts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".