Comparison of different grafting materials for treatment of bone defect distal to the molar in canine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extraction of impacted mandibular 3rd molar is highly related to bone defect distal to the adjacent 2nd molar. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different grafting materials for the treatment of bone defect distal to the mandibular molar in canine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 12 beagle dogs, bilateral mandibular 2nd and 3rd molars were extracted and entire mesial bone of the 2nd molar extracted socket was surgically removed. Twenty-four bone defects (4 mm width and 8 mm depth) were randomly assigned to 4 groups, and grafted using 1 of the following protocols: (1) group C: no graft; (2) group Ta: autogenous bone (AB); (3) group Tb: deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) with a collagen membrane (CM); and (4) group Tab: an equal mixture of AB/DBBM + CM. Quantitative imageology analyses using micro-CT and fluorescence microscopy, as well as qualitative analyses using histological and histomorphometric evaluations, were characterized at postoperative 12 weeks. Significant differences of all variables were tested by multivariate analysis (P < .05). RESULTS: The defect depth was significantly lower in groups Ta, Tb, and Tab (1.70, 1.97, and 1.61 mm, respectively; mean) than in the group C (3.66 mm, P < .01, all). Compared to the sites received DBBM/CM, sites grafted with AB or AB/DBBM exhibited significant greater and faster new bone formation (P < .01). The percentage of DBBM remnants area (%) was significantly higher in group Tb than in group Tab (10.43% and 1.13%, P < .01; mean). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggested grafting AB alone, DBBM/CM, or AB/DBBM/CM resulted in similar periodontal parameters in canine. Furthermore, the AB could accelerate new bone regeneration and mineralization, and promote the biodegradation of DBBM.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".