Platelet‐Rich Plasma–Assisted Guided Bone Regeneration for Ridge Augmentation: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) contains a number of biologically active growth factors, and previous studies have reported conflicting ridge augmentation results. The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, masked, clinical trial was to determine if PRP combined with a rapidly resorbing cancellous allograft would enhance the regenerative result compared with an allograft without PRP. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with an edentulous ridge defect were sequentially entered into the study; four were excluded from data analysis. Fourteen patients received a cancellous allograft (CAN group) and the other 14 received a cancellous allograft mixed with PRP (PRP group). All 28 grafted sites were covered with a resorbable polylactide membrane. After elevation of a full-thickness flap, horizontal ridge dimensions were measured with a digital caliper at the crest and 5 mm apical to the crest. Vertical ridge dimensions were measured from a tooth-supported stent. All sites were reentered at 4 months, and a trephine core was obtained for histologic analysis before implant placement. RESULTS: The crestal ridge width for the CAN group had a mean gain of 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, whereas the PRP group gained 2.9 ± 1.0, and the difference was statistically significant between groups (P <0.05). The percent vital bone was 36% ± 14% for the CAN group compared with 51% ± 15% for the PRP group and was statistically significant between groups (P <0.05). Loss of augmented ridge width was 34% ± 17% for the CAN group and 28% ± 17% for the PRP group (P >0.05). CONCLUSION: These clinical and histologic findings suggest that PRP enhanced bone regeneration and resulted in increased horizontal bone gain and percentage vital bone.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".