Short implants (6 mm) installed immediately into extraction sockets: An experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effect of implant length (6 mm vs.11 mm) on osseointegration (bone-to-implant contact) of implants installed into sockets immediately after tooth extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In six Labrador dogs, the pulp tissue of the mesial roots of (3) P(3) was removed and the root canals were filled. Flaps were elevated bilaterally, the premolars hemi-sectioned and the distal roots removed. Recipient sites were prepared in the distal alveolus and a 6 mm or an 11 mm long implant was installed at the test and control sites, respectively. Non-submerged healing was allowed. After 4 months of healing, block sections of the implant sites were obtained for histological processing and peri-implant tissue assessment. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between test and control sites both for hard and soft tissue parameters. The bone-to-implant contact evaluated at the apical region of the implants was similar as well. Although not statistically significant, the location of the top of the bony crest at the buccal aspect was more apical in relation to the implant shoulder at the test compared with the control sites (2.0 ± 1.4 and 1.2 ± 1.1 mm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Shorter implants (6 mm) present with equal osseointegration than do longer implants (11 mm).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".