Fresh Frozen versus Autogenous Iliac Bone for the Rehabilitation of the Extremely Atrophic Maxilla with Onlay Grafts and Endosseous Implants: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare (1) the clinical outcome of the reconstruction of extremely atrophic edentulous maxillae with fresh frozen allogeneic bone (FFB) (group A) and autogenous bone (AB) (group B) iliac blocks; and (2) the peri-implant bone resorption and the survival rate of implants in the two groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 1-year period, eight patients were treated with FFB and seven with AB iliac grafts. Five to seven months afterward, 108 implants were inserted (59 in group A and 49 in group B). Four to five months afterward, patients were rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. The mean follow-up was 24 months. RESULTS: Prior to implant placement, graft exposure occurred in two patients in group A and in one patient in group B. The mean graft resorption prior to implant placement was 0.78 mm and 0.54 mm in group A and B, respectively. After implant placement, bone graft exposures with partial loss of the graft occurred in six out of eight patients in group A and in none of the group B patients. The survival rate of implants was 90.1% and 100% in group A and B, respectively. The mean values of peri-implant bone resorption at the end of the follow-up period were 1.64 mm and 0.92 mm in group A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results of this study seem to demonstrate that FFB does not represent a reliable alternative to AB blocks because of the higher rate of bone exposure and partial loss of the grafts, the lower implant survival, and the higher peri-implant bone resorption in FFB patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".