Cortical Bone Augmentation Versus Nerve Lateralization for Treatment of Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Retrospective Study and Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to assess implant success/survival/failure rate following cortical autogenous tenting technique (CATT) versus inferior alveolar nerve transposition (IANT) in the posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent these two procedures between 2007 and 2011 were analyzed. CATT was performed using lateral ramus block graft and implants were inserted simultaneously or after 4 to 6 months. In IANT, implants were placed simultaneously after nerve transposition with or without mental foramen involvement. Data regarding marginal bone level (MBL), pus discharge (PD), neurosensory dysfunction (NSD), implant mobility, and failure were collected. Success rate was measured based on Pisa Consensus. Independent sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05 was used to compare implant dimensions and MBL changes between the two techniques. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients with a mean age of 54.85 years were included. The mean follow-up after CATT and IANT was 37.97 and 18.51 months, respectively. The overall survival and success rates of dental implants in the CATT group were 98.73% and 71.52%, respectively. The corresponding values for IANT subjects were 98.74% and 94.56%, respectively. Implant length and diameter in IANT group were significantly longer and wider than implants used after CATT (p value < .001). MBL changes in both techniques were less than 1 mm (p value = .79). Two cases of NSD, seven PD, and two implant failures were found in the CATT group. For IANT patients, seven permanent NSD, two PD, two implant failures, and one mandibular fracture were documented. CONCLUSION: Both techniques had implant survival rates similar to implants placed in unaltered bone. A higher implant success rate, albeit with higher incidence of long-lasting nerve damage, was observed in the IANT group.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".