Clinical and Aesthetic Outcome with Post‐Extractive Implants with or without Soft Tissue Augmentation: A 2‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aesthetic outcome of an implant-supported restoration is first of all dependent on the soft tissue volume. Because the labial bone plate resorbs in every direction after tooth extraction, even when an implant is placed immediately, most patients end up with compromised aesthetics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this parallel-designed, randomized clinical trial, participants were randomly assigned to the test group (immediate load post-extractive implant treated with subepithelial connective tissue graft placed using the tunnel technique in the labial area) and control group (immediate load post-extractive implant treated without raising a flap) with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Both groups received deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Patients were observed at baseline, crown insertion, 1-year follow-up, and 2-year follow-up. Clinical, radiological and aesthetic parameters were recorded to assess primary treatment outcomes. A random permuted block system was blindly generated ensuring uniformity of the patient allocation during the trial by randomly distributing three participants to the test and three participants to the control group every six treated patients. RESULTS: At the 2-year examination, all 47 implants were successfully integrated, demonstrating stability and healthy peri-implant soft tissues as documented by standard clinical parameters. The results showed a soft tissue remodeling of -10% in thickness and -18% in highness in the non-grafted group, whereas in the grafted group there was a gain of 35% in thickness and a slight reduction of -11% in highness. Test group reported an increase of aesthetic result (mean pink aesthetic score [PES] 8) compared with control group (mean PES 6.65). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates the effectiveness of placing a soft tissue graft at the time of immediate implant placement in the aesthetic zone. At the 2-year follow-up, test group revealed a better aesthetic outcomes and stable facial soft tissues compared with control group.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".