Stability of Implants Placed in Augmented Posterior Mandible after Alveolar Osteotomy Using Resorbable Nonceramic Hydroxyapatite or Intraoral Autogenous Bone: 12‐Month Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This prospective, controlled split-mouth study evaluated the stability of dental implants placed in the augmented mandibular areas with alveolar segmental "sandwich" osteotomies using nonceramic hydroxyapatite (ncHA) or autogenous bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 11 bilaterally partially edentulous mandibular patients in a split-mouth design. Alveolar augmentation osteotomies were performed bilaterally with interpositional ncHA graft (test group) or interpositional intraoral autogenous bone graft (control group). After 6 months of healing, four implants (two implants in each side) were placed in each patient. Forty-four implants were inserted and loaded after 6-month healing period. At 1-year follow-up, radiographic, prosthetic, and resonance frequency analysis parameters were assessed. Success criteria included absence of pain, sensitivity, suppuration, and implant mobility; absence of continuous peri-implant radiolucency; and distance between the implant shoulder and the first visible bone contact (DIB) < 2 mm. RESULTS: After a 1-year loading period, the overall implant survival rate was 95.45%, with two implant losses (one of each group). Among the surviving implants (42 out of 44), two did not fulfill the success criteria; therefore, the implant success was 90.90%. DIB was 0.71 ± 0.70 and 0.84 ± 0.72 mm for ncHA and autogenous bone grafts, respectively (p > .05). Implant stability measurements were similar between the groups during the 12-month follow-up (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, the implants placed either in sites augmented with ncHA or autogenous bone seem to represent a safe and successful procedure, at least, after 12-month follow-up.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".