Vertical Bone Augmentation with an Autogenous Block or Particles in Combination with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Clinical and Histological Preliminary Study in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vertical ridge augmentation with the use of solid bone blocks or particulate bone autograft, exposed or covered by a nonresorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane, are well known in the literature and have been shown to be effective in treating bone atrophy. PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to assess the two techniques in respect to biological properties of transplanted bone in graft revascularization and bone remodeling in conjunction with dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were treated within the study, with a total of 12 sites with posterior mandibular edentulous ridges with insufficient bone to allow implant placement. Bone regeneration was performed using autogenous intraoral block graft or autogenous particulate graft with an ePTFE barrier membrane. At 6-10 months, reentry surgery was performed; bone biopsies, including microscrews, were harvested; and implants were placed. RESULTS: Eleven sites out of 12 healed uneventfully. A mean height gain of 5.03 mm was achieved. Mean bone-to-implant contact and bone fill were assessed by means of histomorphometric analysis. The block specimens revealed a bone-to-implant contact of 42.34%, and the particulate grafts had a bone-to-implant contact of 26.62% (p < .012). Bone fill values reported were 68.32% and 48.28% (p < .019) for block specimens versus particulate grafts. CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly showed that both techniques were clinically successful for subsequent implant placement and prosthetic rehabilitation. The histological outcomes, including revascularization and bone remodeling, of the two techniques differed significantly. The block grafts outperformed the particulate grafts in terms of bone-to-implant contact and bone fill values; however, the morbidity associated with the donor site of the block must be considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".