Influence of periodontal tissue thickness on buccal plate remodelling on immediate implants with xenograft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the influence of gingival thickness and bone grafting on buccal bone plate remodelling after immediate implant placement in sockets with thin buccal bone, using a flapless approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The gingiva of eight dogs was thinned at one side of the mandible, mandibular premolars were extracted without flaps, and four implants were installed on each side at 1.5 mm from the buccal bone. The sites were randomly assigned into: TG (test group) = thin gingiva; TG + GM (TG with grafting material); CG (control group) = normal gingiva; and CG + GM (CG with grafting material). After 12 weeks the dogs were sacrificed and the samples were processed for histological analysis. RESULTS: All animals exhibited a thin buccal bone initially. In all the experimental groups the buccal gap was filled with newly formed bone and the buccal bone level was slightly apical to the implant shoulder. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups for the histomorphometric parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The thickness of the buccal bone was a fundamental factor in buccal bone plate resorption, even with flapless implantation. The gingival thickness or the addition of a biomaterial in the gap did not influence the results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".