Influence of presence or absence of teeth adjacent to implants installed immediately into extraction sockets on peri‐implant hard tissue levels: an experimental study in the dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the influence of the presence or absence of adjacent teeth on the level of the mesial and distal alveolar bony crest following healing at sites where implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six Labrador dogs were used. In the right side of the mandible, full-thickness flaps were elevated, and the second, third, and fourth premolars and first molars were extracted. In the left side of the mandible, endodontic treatments of the mesial roots of the third and fourth premolars as well as of the first molars were performed. Full-thickness flaps were elevated, the teeth were hemi-sected, and the distal roots were removed. The second premolars were extracted as well. Subsequently, implants were bilaterally installed with the implant shoulder flush with the buccal bony crest. Implants were placed in the center of the alveoli, but at the fourth premolars, they were placed toward the lingual bony plate of the alveoli. After 3 months of healing, the animals were euthanized and histological sections of the sites prepared. RESULTS: Larger bony crest resorption was observed at the test compared with the control sites, both at the bucco-lingual and mesio-distal aspects. The differences between test and controls for the coronal level of osseointegration were smaller than those for resorption. When data from all mesial and distal sites facing an adjacent tooth were collapsed and compared with those opposing an edentulous zone, lower bony crest resorption and deeper residual marginal defects were found at the sites with neighboring teeth. CONCLUSION: The extraction of teeth adjacent to a socket into which implants were installed immediately after tooth extraction caused more alveolar bone resorption both for the bucco-lingual and at the mesio-distal aspects compared with sites adjacent to a maintained tooth.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".