Dimensional alterations following vertical ridge augmentation using collagen membrane and three types of bone grafting materials: A retrospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various biomaterials have been introduced for vertical ridge augmentation to replace autogenous block bone grafting. PURPOSE: This retrospective study radiographically evaluated dimensional alterations of the vertically augmented alveolar ridge using collagen membrane and 3 types of materials: autogenous bone block, allogenous bone block, and particulated bone substitute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic medical records of 32 patients who received vertical ridge augmentation using 3 types of materials were searched: 9 for autogenous bone block, 12 for allogenous bone block, and 11 for particulated bone substitutes. The vertical bone gain, progression of bone resorption, and peri-implant marginal bone loss after prosthetic loading were measured on follow-up radiographs. RESULTS: The alveolar ridge was vertically augmented by 5.13 ± 1.61, 4.54 ± 2.48, and 3.90 ± 0.85 mm (mean ± standard deviation) after grafting with autogenous bone block, allogenous bone block, and particulated bone substitute, respectively. The radiographic vertical height of the augmented ridge that received autogenous bone block reduced continuously during the first year but was stable thereafter. Sites that received allogenous bone block or particulated bone substitute exhibited dimensional shrinkage for up to 1.5 years postsurgery. However, the peri-implant marginal bone loss did not exceed 1 mm throughout the observational periods in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical findings of this study suggest that the alveolar ridge can be vertically augmented using either allogenous bone block or particulated bone substitute. However, they require a longer healing period to ensure dimensional stability compared to the autogenous bone block.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".