MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Iliac Crest Autogenous Bone Graft versus Alloplastic Graft and Guided Bone Regeneration in the Reconstruction of Atrophic Maxillae: A 5-Year Retrospective Study on Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome

2010· article· en· W1818489273 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christer Dahlin, Anita Johansson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersW. L. Gore and Associates
KeywordsIliac crestMedicineMaxillaDentistryImplantRetrospective cohort studyBone graftingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of the atrophic maxillae with autogenous bone graft and jawbone-anchored bridges is a well-proven technique. However, the morbidity associated with the concept should not be neglected. Furthermore, the costs for such treatment, including general anesthesia and hospital stay, are significant. Little data are found in the literature with regard to a cost-benefit approach to various treatment alternates. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare from a health-economical and clinical perspective the reconstruction of the atrophic maxillae prior to oral implant treatment either with autogenous bone grafts harvested from the iliac crest or the use of demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDB) in combination with a thermoplastic carrier (Regeneration Technologies Inc., Alachua, FL, USA) and guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 26 patients (13 + 13) were selected and matched with regard to indication, sex, and age. The study was performed 5 years after the completion of the treatment. Implant survival, morbidity, and complications were analyzed. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the total cost for the respective treatment modality was performed, including material, costs for staff, sick leave, etc. RESULTS: The study revealed no statistical difference with regard to implant survival for the respective groups. The average total cost, per patient, for the DFDB group was 22.5% of the total cost for a patient treated with autogenous bone grafting procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that reconstruction of atrophic maxillae with a bone substitute material (DFDB) in combination with GBR can be performed with an equal treatment outcome and with less resources and a significant reduced cost in selected cases compared with autogenous bone grafts from the iliac crest.

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)0.002
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations65
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207