Age‐related new bone formation following the use of cancellous bone‐block allografts for reconstruction of atrophic alveolar ridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An age-related decrease in the number of osteogenic progenitor cells may compromise bone augmentation. PURPOSE: Histomorphometrical assessment of age-related new bone formation, following atrophic alveolar ridge reconstruction, using cancellous bone-block allografts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-three consecutive patients (58 females and 35 males) were referred for implant-supported restoration of 122 severe atrophic alveolar ridges. Alveolar ridge deficiency locations were classified as anterior maxilla (n = 58), posterior maxilla (n= 32), and posterior mandible (n = 32). A bony deficiency of at least 3 mm horizontally and up to 3 mm vertically according to computerized tomography (CT) in the posterior mandible and anterior maxilla, served as inclusion criteria. In the posterior maxilla, a residual alveolar ridge up to 4 mm vertically according to CT served as inclusion criteria. Augmentation was performed by the use of cancellous bone-block allografts. Bone biopsies (9-month posterior maxilla, 4 months anterior maxilla and posterior mandible) of young (≤40 years) versus older (>40 years) patients were histomorphometrically evaluated. RESULTS: In the posterior maxilla, no statistically significant histomorphometric differences were noted. While at the anterior maxilla and posterior mandible, statistically significant more newly formed bone was found in young versus older individuals, respectively (38.6% vs 19.8%, P = 0.04 and 69% vs 31%, P = .05). CONCLUSION: New bone formation following residual alveolar ridge bone grafting is age-related. Longer bone consolidation and healing time may be recommended for older individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".