Clinical Similarities and Histological Diversity Comparing Fresh Frozen Onlay Bone Blocks Allografts and Autografts in Human Maxillary Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the absence of autologous bone for harvesting, fresh-frozen bone allografts turned into an alternative for bone reconstruction procedures. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to make a histological analysis of fresh-frozen onlay bone allografts (ALs), compared with autografts, in patients who needed maxillary reconstruction prior to dental implants placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with bone deficiencies (width inferior to 4 mm) in the sites where the implants were planned were enrolled in the study. From these, six were elected to be treated with autogenous (AT) bone grafts and six with fresh-frozen bone AL. This last group included the patients who had absence of a convenient amount of bone in donor sites. Each patient received from one to six graft blocks, totalling to 12 ATs and 17 ALs. Seven months after grafting procedures, biopsies of the grafts were made using 2-mm internal diameter trephine burs, and processed for histological analysis. One biopsy was retrieved from each patient. RESULTS: Clinically, all grafts were found to be firm in consistency and well-incorporated to the receptor bed. Histological analysis showed a large amount of necrotic bone surrounded by few spots of new-formed bone in the AL group, suggesting low rate of graft remodeling. In the AT group, an advanced stage of bone remodeling was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Human fresh-frozen bone block AL showed clinical compatibility for grafting procedures, although associated to slow remodeling process. Further studies are needed to define, at long term, the remodeling process chronology the clinical longitudinal results for fresh-frozen bone AL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".