Preservation and augmentation of molar extraction sites affected by severe bone defect due to advanced periodontitis: A prospective clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of the extracted infected-molar ridge preservation are limited. PURPOSE: To compare alterations of hard and soft tissue in infected-molar sockets receiving ridge preservation compared with natural healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five infected-molar extraction sites either preserving with Bio-Gide membrane covered the Bio-Oss material or receiving natural healing procedure as controls. The soft tissue profile was evaluated before tooth extraction and after 6-month healing. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were taken immediately and 6 months after extraction. Vertical and horizontal bone changes were assessed radiographically. Data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and α = 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in soft tissue and vertical bone changes in the medium region of the sockets were found (P > .05). Buccal bone changes in the mesial and distal sites in the test group were significantly lower than the control group (P < .05). Ridge width increased from 0.21mm to 5.30mm at 1mm apical from the crest in the test and reduced from 0.12 mm to 1.00 mm in the control groups. CONCLUSION: Ridge preservation at periodontally compromised molar extraction sites might compensate for ridge width and buccal bone resorption that occurs with natural healing alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".