MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2128712656 · doi:10.1111/cid.12063

Effects of Immediate and Delayed Loading on Peri‐Implant Trabecular Structures: A Cone Beam <scp>CT</scp> Evaluation

2013· article· en· W2128712656 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Huang, Jeroen Van Dessel, Xin Liang, Maarten Depypere, Weijian Zhong, Guowu Ma, Ivo Lambrichts, Frederik Maes, Reinhilde Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealing FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoronal planeImplantCone beam computed tomographyPremolarMedicineDentistryOsseointegrationReduction (mathematics)Dental implantOrthodonticsMolarComputed tomographyAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop a method for characterizing trabecular bone microarchitecture using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to evaluate trabecular bone changes after rehabilitation using immediate versus delayed implant protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six mongrel dogs randomly received 27 titanium implants in the maxillary incisor or mandibular premolar areas, following one of four protocols: (1) normal extraction socket healing; (2) immediate implant placement and immediate loading; (3) delayed implant placement and delayed loading; (4) delayed implant placement and immediate loading. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks, and block biopsies were scanned using high resolution CBCT. Standard bone structural variables were assessed in coronal, middle, and apical levels. RESULTS: Coronal and middle regions had more compact, more platelike, and thicker trabeculae. Protocols (2), (3), and (4) had significantly higher values (p < 0.001) than protocol (1) for bone surface density, bone surface volume ratio, and connectivity density, while significantly lower values (p < 0.001) were found for trabecular separation and fractal dimension. However, protocols (2), (3), and (4) did not show significantly different bone remodeling. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with normal extraction healing, the implant protocols have an improved bone structural integration. Results do not suggest a different bone remodeling pattern when a delayed versus an immediate implant protocol is used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→