Connective tissue grafts in conjunction with implants installed immediately into extraction sockets. An experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the influence of a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft placed at the buccal aspect of implants installed immediately after tooth extraction on the dimensional changes of hard and soft tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six Labrador dogs a bilateral partial- thickness dissection was made buccal to the second mandibular premolar. At the lingual aspect, full-thickness flaps were elevated. The teeth were extracted and implants installed immediately into the distal socket. A connective tissue graft was obtained from the palate and applied to the buccal aspect of the test sites, whereas contra-laterally, no graft was applied. The flaps were sutured to allow a non-submerged installation. After 4 months of healing, the animals were sacrificed, ground sections were obtained and histomorphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS: After 4 months of healing, all implants were integrated (n = 6). Both at the test and at the control sites bone resorption occurred: 1.6 mm and 2.1 mm, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. The coronal aspect of the peri-implant soft tissue was wider and located more coronally at the test compared with the control sites. The differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The application of a connective tissue graft placed at the buccal aspect of the bony wall at implants installed immediately after tooth extraction yielded a minimal preservation of the hard tissues. The peri-implant mucosa, however, was significantly thicker and more coronally positioned at the test compared with the control sites.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".