Efficacy of Cancellous Block Allograft Augmentation Prior to Implant Placement in the Posterior Atrophic Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the outcome of ridge augmentation with cancellous freeze-dried block bone allografts in the posterior atrophic mandible followed by placement of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bony deficiency of at least 3 mm, horizontally, vertically, or both, according to computerized tomography (CT) para-axial reconstruction served as inclusion criteria. Implants were inserted after a healing period of 6 months. Bone measurements were taken prior to bone augmentation, during implant placement, and at second-stage surgery. Marginal bone loss and crown-to-implant ratio were also measured. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cancellous allogeneic bone blocks were placed in 21 patients. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Bone block survival rate was 79.3%. Mean horizontal and vertical bone gains were 5.6 and 4.3 mm, respectively. Mean buccal bone resorption was 0.5 mm at implant placement and 0.2 mm at second-stage surgery. A total of 85 implants were placed. Mean bone thickness buccal to the implant neck was 2.5 mm at implant placement and 2.3 mm at second-stage surgery. There was no evidence of vertical bone loss between implant placement and second-stage surgery. Implant survival rate was 95.3%. All patients received a fixed implant-supported prosthesis. At the last follow-up, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.5 mm. The mean crown-to-implant ratio was 0.96. CONCLUSION: Implant placement in the posterior atrophic mandible following augmentation with cancellous freeze-dried bone block allografts may be regarded as a viable treatment alternative.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".