Ridge preservation procedures revisited: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate dimensional changes with two different surgical protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of different surgical techniques for ridge preservation on soft tissue parameters has seldom been investigated. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of two different ridge preservation techniques on soft and hard tissue dimensions. METHODS: Thirty patients requiring tooth extraction were randomly allocated to either control group C (allograft covered with a non-crosslinked collagen membrane with primary closure) or experimental group E (allograft covered with cross-linked collagen membrane left exposed). Sites were surgically re-entered at 6 months. Soft and hard tissue measurements, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and cast measurements were taken at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were included in this analysis. When the two treatment groups were compared, the width of the buccal keratinized tissue in the E group showed an increase of 0.43 ± 0.42 mm compared to net loss of 1.57 ± 0.51 mm for the C (P = 0.006). Similarly, buccal tissue thickness has increased in the E group 0.46 ± 0.22 mm compared to a loss of 0.15 ± 0.23 mm in the C group (P = 0.068). Volumetric assessment of the changes in the alveolar ridge for the E group showed a slight decrease (68.3 ± 17 mm3) whereas the C group has experienced almost double this loss (107.5 ± 11 mm3; P = 0.07). Crestal width, measured on the CBCT scan, has shown significant reduction in the C group (4.18 ± 0.56 mm) compared to only 1.74 ± 0.4 mm in the E group (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Crosslinked collagen membrane with allograft placed intentionally non-submerged resulted in better preservation of the keratinized tissues (width and thickness) with similar and at times better osseous preservation following extraction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".