MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconstruction of the Severely Resorbed Maxilla with Autogenous Bone, Platelet-Rich Plasma, and Implants: 1 -Year Results of a Controlled Prospective 5-Year Study

2005· article· en· W1972410798 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andreas Thor, Karin Wannfors, Lars Sennerby, Lars Rasmusson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlatelet-rich plasmaMaxillaDentistryMedicineProspective cohort studyOrthodonticsPlateletSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic treatment of the edentulous maxilla may require bone augmentation to enable placement and integration of dental implants. This constitutes a complex healing situation, and resorption of the grafted bone and failure of the implants often occur. The application of autogenous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been suggested to improve incorporation and preservation of bone grafts. PURPOSE: The aim of this controlled clinical study was to evaluate whether PRP in conjunction with grafting of particulated autogenous bone to the maxilla could improve the integration and clinical function of dental implants. An additional aim was to compare block bone grafts without PRP with PRP-treated particulated bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients were included in the study and treated with iliac bone grafts and dental implants in the maxilla according to a split-mouth design. In the anterior maxilla, particulated bone mixed with PRP (test) was compared with onlay block grafts without additional PRP (control). In the posterior maxilla, particulated bone grafts with (test) or without (control) PRP were placed as sinus inlay grafts. After 6 months of healing, 152 implants (8 implants/patient) (TiOblast, Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) were placed. Test (PRP; 76 implants) and non-PRP (76 implants) sides were evaluated and compared by implant survival rate, marginal bone level, and implant stability using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) during 1 year in function. RESULTS: Two control implants in control sites in two patients were lost at abutment connection. After 1 year in function, no further implants were lost, giving an overall survival rate of 98.7%. The marginal bone level measurements showed no significant differences, although there was a tendency toward less resorption on PRP sides. RFA measurements showed statistically significantly higher implant stability quotient values for PRP sites at abutment connection in the anterior but not in the posterior regions. CONCLUSIONS: The present clinical study showed that a high implant survival rate and stable marginal bone conditions can be achieved after 1 year of loading in the maxilla following autogenous bone grafting whether or not PRP is used. RFA measurements revealed differences at abutment connection, which could be explained by the type of graft rather than as an effect of PRP. Although no obvious positive effects of PRP on bone graft healing could be demonstrated, the handling of the particulated bone grafts was improved.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations123
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207