MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2782873157 · doi:10.1111/cid.12581

Radiographic analysis of dental implant extensions using bone grafts on dogs

2018· article· en· W2782873157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Álida Lúcia Cardoso, Cirilo Antônio de Paula Lima, Agenor Montebello Filho, Adriano Alves Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da EducaçãoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsImplantOsseointegrationMedicineDentistryDental implantRadiographyHumerusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the wide use of dental implants they can bring inconveniences, as the moment one reaches osseointegration, these can no longer be extended. Therefore, if a problem occurs regarding its positioning, the options open are substitution or burial of the implant. With implant substitution, there exists the risk of local bone loss and/or future loss of the new implant. PURPOSE: This study proposes a new device (implant extender) for extending the dental implant. The feasibility of this technique is verified through installing dental implant extensions onto the humerus bone of dogs with autogenous bone grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants of 3.3 mm in diameter by 6 mm in length and implant extensions with a 3.3 mm diameter and 2.2 mm length were installed onto humerus of 4 healthy dogs, using an autogenous bone graft in a block made from ilium. The biomechanical percussion tests were performed on the implant extensions and then the implant-extension sets were removed for radiographic analysis. RESULTS: In the biomechanical percussion, none of the extensions present clinical mobility. As for the x-rays, these were analyzed by 20 professionals, who concluded that there was a 100% success rate with bone formation around the implants, 74.1% for bone neoformation of the implant extensions, and 80.1% referring to the adaptation of the implant extension. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Bone formation occurred in every installed dental implant. In most cases, there occurred bone neoformation of the extensions and adaptation of the extension/implant set, according to the x-ray analysis performed by the evaluators. An absence of clinical mobility in the extensions was also observed. Although the results were promising, these techniques still need to be researched in humans, as an alternative for reducing elongated prosthetic crowns or poorly installed implants, as well as the modification of the type of implants among other applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→