MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Comparison of Manual and Electrical Mallet in Maxillary Bone Condensing for Immediately Loaded Implants: A Randomized Study

2012· article· en· W2155285841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberto Crespi, Paolo Capparè, Enrico Gherlone

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryMalletImplantPremolarMaxillaMaxillary sinusOsteotomeOrthodonticsMolarOsteotomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical study was to compare electrical versus hand mallet in osteotome-assisted surgery for maxillary bone condensing in immediately loaded implant procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous patients in maxillary premolar and molar regions with type III or IV bone were enrolled in this prospective clinical study. The patients were randomly divided in two groups: in the test group (magnetic mallet group [MMG]), the implant site was prepared with osteotomes pushed by electrical mallet, while in the control group (hand mallet group [HMG]), the implant site was performed with osteotomes pressed by hand mallet. Implants were immediately loaded. Intraoral digital radiographic measurements were reported at 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-five patients were included in MMG and 25 patients in the HMG. One hundred thirty-eight dental implants were placed. In 12 cases, six in MMG and six in HMG, sinus elevation was performed. After 24-month follow-up, a survival rate of 94.93% was reported (MMG and HMG reported a survival rate of 97.10 and 92.75%, respectively, not statistically significant [P > .05]). In control group, two patients claimed benign paroxysmal positional vertigo following the use of osteotomes with hand hammer. Marginal bone levels remained stable over time for both groups, and no statistically significant differences were found. After 12 months, the bone height increased in both groups and, at 24 months, was stable. Statistical analysis reported no significant differences between test and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated a stable marginal bone levels over time and a significant increase in bone height between 6 and 12 months in osteotome technique. The use of electrical mallet provided some essential clinical advantages for the patients during surgical procedure in comparison with hand mallet.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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