Is Peripheral Blood Cell Balanced Altered by the Use of Fresh Frozen Bone Block Allografts in Lateral Maxillary Ridge Augmentation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between the immune response and red and white blood cell homeostasis is cited in literature, but no studies regarding the balance of these cell populations following maxillary bone-graft surgeries can be found. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible impairments in the blood cell balance following fresh-frozen allogeneic bone-graft augmentation procedures in patients who needed maxillary reconstruction prior to implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 33 patients elected to onlay bone grafting procedures, 20 were treated with fresh-frozen bone allografts and 13 with autologous bone grafts. Five blood samples were collected from each patient in a 6-month period (baseline: 14, 30, 90, and 180 days postsurgery), and the hematological parameters (erythrogram, leukogram, and platelets count) were accessed. RESULTS: All evaluated parameters were within the reference values accepted as normal, and significant differences were found for the eosinophils count when comparing the treatments (30 days, p = .035) and when comparing different periods of evaluation (allograft-treated group, baseline × 180 days, p ≤ .05 and 90 × 180 days, p ≤ .01; autograft-treated group, 30 × 90 days, p ≤ .05 and 30 × 180 days, p ≤ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic bone grafts did not cause any impairment in the red and white blood cell balance, based on quantitative hemogram analysis, in patients subjected to maxillary reconstruction.
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".