Evaluation of complication rates and vertical bone gain after guided bone regeneration with non‐resorbable membranes versus titanium meshes and resorbable membranes. A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The partial edentulous posterior mandible is often a challenge area that requires a bone reconstructive surgery for implants placement. PURPOSE: This RCT was aimed to evaluate complications rate and vertical bone gain after Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) with dense non-resorbable d-PTFE titanium-reinforced membranes (Group A) versus titanium meshes covered by cross-linked collagen membranes (Group B). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 40 partially edentulous patients with atrophic posterior mandible, were randomly divided into two study group: 20 patients were treated with one stage GBR by means of non-resorbable d-PTFE titanium-reinforced membranes (Group A); and 20 patients, by means of titanium mesh covered by cross-linked collagen membranes (Group B). All complications were recorded, distinguishing between "surgical" and "healing" and between "minor" or "major.". Primary implants stability and vertical bone gain were also evaluated. RESULTS: In the group A, surgical and healing complication rates were 5.0% and 15.0%, respectively. In the group B, surgical and healing complication rates were 15.8% and 21.1%, respectively. No significant differences between two study group were observed regarding complications rate implant stability and vertical bone gain. CONCLUSIONS: Both GBR approaches for the restoration of atrophic posterior mandible achieved similar results regarding complications, vertical bone gain and implant stability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".