Healing of Extraction Sockets Filled with BoneCeramic® Prior to Implant Placement: Preliminary Histological Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various grafting materials have been designed to minimize edentulous ridge volume loss following tooth extraction by encouraging new bone formation in healing sockets. BoneCeramic® is a composite of hydroxyapatite and bèta-tricalcium phosphate with pores of 100-500 microns. PURPOSES: The aim of this study was to evaluate bone regeneration in healing sockets substituted with BoneCeramic® prior to implant procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen extraction sockets were substituted with BoneCeramic® and 14 sockets were left to heal naturally in 10 patients (mean age 59.6 years). Biopsies were collected only from the implant recipient sites during surgery after healing periods ranging from 6-74 weeks (mean 22). In total, 24 biopsies were available; 10 from substituted and 14 from naturally healed sites. In one site, the implant was not placed intentionally and, in four substituted sites, implant placement had to be postponed due to inappropriate healing, hence from five sites biopsies were not available. Histological sections were examined by transmitted light microscope. RESULTS: At the time of implant surgery, bone at substituted sites was softer than in controls, compromising initial implant stability. New bone formation at substituted sites was consistently poorer than in controls, presenting predominantly loose connective tissue and less woven bone. CONCLUSION: The use of BoneCeramic® as a grafting material in fresh extraction sockets appears to interfere with normal healing processes of the alveolar bone. On the basis of the present preliminary findings, its indication as a material for bone augmentation, when implant placement is considered within 6-38 weeks after extraction, should be revised.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".