Effect of Buccal Gap Distance on Alveolar Ridge Alteration After Immediate Implant Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The buccal bone resorption and the deformation of soft tissue contour are major problems of immediate implant treatment. This study aims to examine the changes of alveolar bone and soft tissue after immediate implant placement in different buccal gap distances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight implants were placed randomly in the mandibular premolar sockets of 6 hybrid dogs with 1, 2, and 3 mm buccal gap distances. The dogs were killed after 2 or 4 months for morphometric and microcomputed tomography analyses. DISCUSSION: After 2 months, the 3-mm group had the highest buccal bone volume (BV), buccal bone/soft tissue thickness, and the lowest bone resorption. The wider the buccal gap, the more buccal bone and soft tissue were formed in this experimental setting. After 4 months, the buccal BV had decreased significantly in the 1-mm and the 2-mm groups, whereas the 3-mm group resisted to buccal bone resorption. This difference was more pronounced at the crest. CONCLUSION: The 3 mm is the optimal gap distance among the groups examined, which drastically influences the healing of bone and soft tissue surrounding the implants.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".