Reconstrução imediata de diferentes defeitos peri-implantares em implantes pós-exodônticos: análise histomorfométrica em cães
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of these studies were to evaluate bone regeneration at natural or surgically-created buccal defects at implants placed immediately into extraction sockets (IPIES). Material and methods: Eight Labrador dogswere used and implants were placed immediately into the extraction sockets of P2 (second premolar ) and M1 (first molar), bilaterally. At P2, the buccal wall of the extraction sockets was removed bilaterally to create a standardized defect, 4 mm wide coronally, 2 mm wide apically, and 6 mm height. At P2 sites, Bio-Oss at the test (OB) or autogenous bone at the control (OA) sites were used to fill the defects. At M1 sites, Bone Ceramic ® at the test (BC) or the clot alone (COA) were used to fill the defects. All surgical sites were subsequently covered by a resorbable collagen membraneand a non-submerged healing was allowed . After 4 months the animals were euthanized, bone blocks harvested and processed for histomorphometric analysis . Results: at P2 sites, IS- C values were slightly higher (2.3±0.8mm) in the OA compared to the OB (1.7±0.7 mm). IS- B were 2.7 ± 0.7mm and 2.2 ± 1.0mm on the buccal side and 1.6 ± 0.8mm and 0.8 ± 0.5mm on the lingual side at OA and OB groups, respectively. The average values of PM- C , B - PM and PM -IS in OA and OB groups were 4.3 ± 0.9mm , 4.7 ± 0.9mm , 2.0 ± 1.6mm and 4.3 ± 0.6mm , 4.8 ± 0.6mm , 2.5 ± 0.8mm, respectively. A statistically significant difference was only observed in the thickness of the buccal bony crest at 2-5 mm apically to IS (the implant neck) when the biomaterial (S -OCbt )...
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".