Hard tissue volume stability of guided bone regeneration during the healing stage in the anterior maxilla: A clinical and radiographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is currently the most widely used technique to reconstruct localized peri-implant bone defects. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate hard tissue volume stability during the healing stage of GBR with particulate bone graft and resorbable collagen membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients who were missing a single maxillary incisor and required implant placement combined with GBR were randomly assigned to 2 groups: submerged (n = 14) and transmucosal (n = 14) healing groups. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed before, immediately after and 6 months post-surgery. The 3 sets of CBCT data were three-dimensionally reconstructed and superimposed. Horizontal hard tissue alterations at different vertical levels were recorded. The relative position and distances from the boundary line of the bony defect envelope to the outlines of the augmented ridge were determined immediately post-augmentation and 6 months after healing. RESULTS: Augmented ridge underwent horizontal volume reduction during the healing period. Vertical levels (P = .000) rather than healing strategies (submerged or transmucosal) (P = .182) had statistically significant impacts on the reduction width. The boundary line of the ridge defect envelope located within the bony profile immediately after surgery, but outside of the bony profile after 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: GBR with resorbable membrane and particulate bovine bone would undergo horizontal volume reduction during the healing stage. New bone formation at the coronal site may only be predictable within the bony envelope.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".