Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Buccal Advancement Flap Versus Platelet-Rich Fibrin Application for the Immediate Closure of Acute Oroantral Communications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of buccal advancement flap surgery to platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) application for the closure of acute oroantral communications (AOACs). In 36 patients, following the extractions of posterior maxillary teeth, AOACs which were larger than 3 mm diameter were detected. In group A, PRF clots were used in 21 patients and group B, classic buccal advancement flap was used in 15 patients. Baseline variables such as pain, the analgesic doses are taken, and swelling was assessed preoperatively. These were also examined on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 7, and patients were seen again in the 3rd week. In group A, statistically significant reduction was examined (P < 0.05) in pain and the analgesic doses are taken (sum of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th days on days 1 and 2) (PRF). The swelling was also significantly less in group A (P < 0.05). The mean duration did not differ between the groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, both methods were successful for the immediate closure of AOACs. However, a lesser amount of pain and no swelling observed with the use of PRF clots for the immediate closure of AOACs compared to buccal advancement flap surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".