Comparison of allografts and xenografts used for alveolar ridge preservation. A clinical and histomorphometric RCT in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several types of bone grafts are used in ridge preservation procedures. PURPOSE: To compare the healing of allografts and xenografts applied for alveolar ridge preservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty volunteers in need of extraction of a single-rooted tooth prior to implant installation were randomized into two groups. One group received a deproteinized cancellous bovine bone xenograft embedded in a 10% collagen matrix and the other a demineralized freeze-dried cortical bone allograft. A collagen membrane was used to cover the grafts, flaps were sutured. At baseline and 6 months later, clinical measurements including vertical and horizontal bone dimensions were taken. Histomorphometric analysis was performed. RESULTS: Both groups showed shrinkage of bone dimensions. At mesial, center and distal sites, the vertical changes in dimension were -0.6, 0.5, and -0.1 mm for the allograft and -1.1, -0.4, and -0.9 mm for the xenograft. The horizontal changes in dimensions were -1.4 mm for the allograft and -2.6 mm for the xenograft. New bone and residual graft material were 25.5 ± 10.1% and 33.8 ± 9.4% at the allograft and 35.3 ± 16.8% and 22.2 ± 13.4% at the xenograft sites. None of the differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Both grafting materials are suitable for the preservation of the alveolar ridge.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".