Alterations of the bone dimension following immediate implant placement into extraction socket: systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This systematic review was aimed at analysing bone dimensional alterations within the first year following immediate implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE from January 1980 to October 2013. Quality assessment of selected articles was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale according to the design of each study. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate bone dimensional reduction. Weighted mean differences in bone dimension between baseline and follow-up measurement were calculated. Subgroup analysis and mete-regression were conducted to evaluate the effects of different variables. RESULTS: A total of 1348 articles were identified following the search process. Six studies were included in the present review. The weighted mean buccal horizontal bone dimensional reduction (BHDr) was 1.07 mm and buccal vertical bone dimensional reduction (BVDr) was 0.78 mm. The weighted mean palatal bone dimensional reduction was 0.62 mm horizontally (PHDr) and 0.50 mm vertically (PVDr). The initial thickness of the buccal alveolar plate (TB) of the socket was the only variable significantly correlated with BHDr and BVDr in meta-regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The bone dimensions of immediate implant sites demonstrated approximately 0.5-1.0 mm reduction in vertical and horizontal aspects 4-12 months following surgery. The results should be interpreted with care because of the data heterogeneity. The correlation of the socket buccal wall thickness, and other variables, with dimensional changes of the bony ridge should be investigated further in controlled clinical trials.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".