MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Collagenated Porcine Bone Substitute for Augmentation at Neoss Implant Sites: A Prospective 1‐Year Multicenter Case Series Study with Histology

2010· article· en· W1927484812 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luca Pagliani, Peter Andersson, Massimiliano Lanza, Antonio Nappo, Damiano Verrocchi, Stefano Volpe, Lars Sennerby

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantMaxillary sinusDentistryImplant stability quotientRadiographyDental implantSinus (botany)Dental alveolusAbutmentSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The presence of localized defects and/or small amounts of bone below the maxillary sinus is a common finding, which may compromise implant placement. There is therefore a need for predictable techniques for bone augmentation in such situations. PURPOSE: The study aims to clinically and histologically evaluate a porcine bone (PB) substitute used for augmentation of the alveolar crest or the maxillary sinus floor prior to or in conjunction with implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients were treated with a porcine bone substitute and barrier membranes (OsteoBiol, Tecnoss Dental, Turin, Italy) for lateral bone augmentation (Group 1a) and healing of bone defects (Group 1b) or for augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor using either a replaceable (Group 2a) or an infractured bone window (Group 2b). A total of 34 implants (Neoss Ltd., Harrogate, UK) were placed in conjunction or 5 to 7 months after the procedure. Implants were followed with implant stability measurements at placement and abutment connection, and with intraoral radiographs at abutment connection and after at least 1 year of loading. A biopsy for histology and morphometry was taken at the first reentry operation. RESULTS: All but one of the procedures was successful (94.7%) as one maxillary sinus procedure (Group 2a) resulted in insufficient bone for implant placement. One of the 34 implants failed, giving an implant survival rate of 97.1% after 1 year. Implant stability measurements showed a mean stability of 71.9 ± 7.7 implant stability quotient (ISQ) at placement, which significantly increased to 75.3 ± 6.8 ISQ at abutment connection (p = .03). The average bone loss was 0.5 ± 0.7 mm during 1 year. Histology revealed new bone formation at the PB surface, which formed bridges between particles and between particles and preexisting bone. The presence of scalloped resorption lacunae and new osteons inside the particles indicated ongoing resorption/remodeling of the particles. The histomorphometric analyses showed that the total specimen area consisted of, in average, 56.5 ± 15.7% mineralized tissue of which 24.8 ± 13.9% of the total area was PB particles. CONCLUSION: This study showed good clinical results when using a PB substitute and barrier membranes for augmentation of the alveolar crest and maxillary sinus. Histology revealed bone condensation properties and indicated that the material can be resorbed with time.

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)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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