The effect of the heights and thicknesses of the remaining root segments on buccal bone resorption in the socket‐shield technique: An experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date only a few studies have been done on the use of the socket-shield technique for preserving the resorption of the buccal bone in aesthetically sensitive sites. Besides, there have been no further studies on the effect of the heights and thicknesses of the remaining root segments on buccal bone resorption when using this method. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different heights and thicknesses of the remaining root segments on bone resorption in the socket-shield technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four healthy female beagle dogs were used in this study. The third premolar (P3) and the fourth premolar (P4) on both sides of the mandible were hemisected in the buccal-lingual direction, and the clinical crown of the distal root was beheaded. In the experimental groups, the roots were worn down in the apical direction until they were located at the buccal crestal level (Group A) or 1 mm higher than that level (Group B). In the control group, the distal root segments were extracted. Then, implant placement was performed into the distal root. After 3 months of healing, the specimens were prepared for histological diagnosis. RESULTS: There was no difference between Group A and Group B when using the socket-shield technique, but the results of both groups were better than those of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The height of the root segments has little effect on the bone absorption of alveolar bone, while the bone absorption was strongly influenced by the thickness of the root segments. More precisely, the absorption may decrease if the thickness of the root fragment increases, when the thickness of the root plate is in the 0.5-1.5 mm range.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".