The jumping distance revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following tooth extraction, a socket often presents dimensions that may be considerably greater that the diameter of a conventional implant. The present experiment was performed to study the healing that occurred adjacent to implants placed in recipient sites with a wide marginal defect. Four Labrador dogs were used. In the right side of the mandible, four experimental sites were prepared to receive titanium implants [sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) surface]. Traditional implant installation (control) was performed in one site. In the remaining three sites (test), a step drill was used to widen the marginal 5 mm of the canal. Following placement of an implant in a test site, a circumferential gap about 1-1.25 mm wide and 5 mm deep was present lateral to the implant. A resorbable barrier membrane was used to cover the implant and the bone tissue of two sites, while one site was left uncovered. Four months following implant installation, block biopsies of each implant site were obtained and prepared for ground sectioning. After 4 months of healing, the large marginal defect had been filled with newly formed bone. The degree of bone-to-implant contact between the newly formed tissue and the SLA surface was at all test sites high and similar to that obtained at control sites. The placement of a barrier membrane following implant installation did not improve the outcome of healing. We conclude that a marginal defect wider than 1 mm may heal with new bone and a high degree of osseointegration to an implant designed with a SLA surface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".