MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896779933 · doi:10.1111/cid.12682

Clinical outcomes of implants placed in ridge‐preserved versus nonpreserved sites: A 4‐year randomized clinical trial

2018· article· en· W2896779933 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simone Marconcini, Enrica Giammarinaro, Giacomo Derchi, Fortunato Alfonsi, Ugo Covani, Antonio Barone

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryPremolarImplantRandomized controlled trialMolarCortical boneBone graftingSoft tissueSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Consistent bone changes occur after tooth removal, often compromising the success of implants placed within the socket left to natural healing The long-term effect of ridge preservation on implant outcomes is still unclear. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess success and survival rates of implants placed in extraction sockets, with spontaneous healing, or grafted with cortical porcine bone, or collagenated corticocancellous porcine bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients in need for a single premolar/molar tooth extraction and an implant treatment were selected for the present study. Patients were randomly distributed among 3 groups: sites that healed naturally (ctrl), or sites that received ridge preservation with either cortical (cort) or collagenated corticocancellous porcine bone (coll). Three months after, all the experimental sites were reentered to insert implants. Marginal bone levels were recorded; soft tissues were analyzed and summarized with the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Forty-two patients out of 90 (initial cohort study) completed the entire follow-up of 4 years. RESULTS: Cumulative survival and success rates for all implants were 100% at a 4-year evaluation. Mean marginal bone loss (MBL) was 1.14 ± 0.23 mm in the cort group, 1.13 ± 0.29 mm in the coll group, and 1.92 ± 0.07 mm in the ctrl group. There were no significant differences between the 2 grafting materials but MBL was significantly greater in the nongrafted sites (P value < .001). The PES resulted significantly better (9.42 ± 0.75) for the cort group than for the coll group (8.53 ± 1.18) and ctrl group (6.07 ± 1.89) at 4-year evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Ridge preservation was more effective than natural healing in preserving marginal bone and in achieving better esthetic outcomes around implants 4 years after placement. The cortical porcine bone showed better clinical outcomes than collagenated corticocancellous porcine bone.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207