Magnesium-enriched hydroxyapatite at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the influence of magnesium-enriched hydroxyapatite (MHA) (SintLife(®)) on bone contour preservation and osseointegration at implants placed immediately into extraction sockets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the mandibular pre-molar region, implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets of six Labrador dogs. MHA was placed at test sites, while the control sites did not receive augmentation materials. Implants were intended to heal in a submerged mode. After 4 months of healing, the animals were sacrificed, and ground sections were obtained for histomorphometric evaluation. RESULTS: After 4 months of healing, one control implant was not integrated leaving n=5 test and control implants for evaluation. Both at the test and the control sites, bone resorption occurred. While the most coronal bone-to-implant contact was similar between test and control sites, the alveolar bony crest outline was maintained to a higher degree at the buccal aspect of the test sites (loss: 0.7 mm) compared with the control sites (loss: 1.2 mm), even though this difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MHA to fill the defect around implants placed into the alveolus immediately after tooth extraction did not contribute significantly to the maintenance of the contours of the buccal alveolar bone 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".