Evaluation of volumetric dimensional changes in posterior extraction sites with and without ARP using a novel imaging device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alveolar ridge volume loss may be minimized when postextraction sockets are filled by bone substitutes. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to measure the effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in maintaining the external contour of the ridge after fresh socket grafting with or without particulate anorganic bovine bone mineral (BBM) and resorbable barrier covering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present controlled study, patients subjected to single-tooth extraction were allocated to 2 groups: postextraction sockets grafted with bovine bone mineral (bbm), and naturally healing sockets (nat). Before and at 5 months following tooth extraction, plaster cast contours of the sockets were acquired by means of an optical scanner; the 2 contours of each patient underwent voxelization and fusion using a matrix elaborator. Outcome variables at 5 months (volumetric, surface, and linear changes) were measured in digital fused plaster casts with a dental scan software analyzing a volume of interest ranging from residual papilla to 10 mm toward the apical point. Intra- and inter-group pair-wise variables' comparisons were conducted. Level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-four sites were enrolled: 12 ARP and 12 naturally healed. Five-month percentage of volume loss of the bbm-group (21.7% ± 7.4%) was significantly lower (Ps < .0003) than that of the naturally healing group (38.8% ± 7.9%). When tooth position was investigated, volume loss in percentage registered a significantly better (P values ≤ .0485) behavior in molars (ΔV% = -19.1% ± 6.5% and ΔV% = -35.6% ± 7.6%, respectively, for bbm and nat) than that in premolars (ΔV% = -26.9% ± 7.2% and ΔV% = -45.1% ± 4.2%, respectively, for bbm and nat), in both the preserved and naturally healing groups. CONCLUSION: The dimensional loss in postextraction sockets grafted with anorganic bovine bone substitute and covered by a resorbable collagen barrier was lower than that of the naturally healing sites. However, ridge preservation was able to maintain almost 80% of the pristine bone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".