Implant Site Development by Orthodontic Extrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of orthodontic extrusion of nonrestorable teeth prior to implant placement for improving the alveolar bone and gingival characteristics of implant recipient sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic database searches of the following databases were conducted with the help of a senior health sciences librarian: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus. Hand searches of the reference lists of selected articles were also conducted. Abstracts that appeared to fulfill the initial selection criteria were selected for full article retrieval. Retrieved articles were then carefully evaluated, and more specific selection criteria were applied. The authors conducted the selection processes independently, and any differences were resolved through discussion. An analysis of timing, type, and magnitude of forces applied was sought. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were considered for review. Most of the selected articles were case reports or case series describing orthodontic extrusion of periodontally hopeless maxillary anterior teeth. The results of the reported cases were evaluated individually and collectively with regard to various hard and soft tissue implant site characteristics. Clinically significant gains in alveolar bone and gingival tissue were reported in all cases, resulting in significant quantitative and qualitative improvements in the implant sites. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature, orthodontic extrusion of nonrestorable teeth prior to implant placement appears to be a viable alternative to conventional surgical augmentative procedures in implant site development. No direct comparison to any other method was found, and therefore no conclusion could be made about its relative efficacy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".