Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial to compare hard tissue changes following socket preservation using alloplasts, xenografts vs no grafting: Clinical and histological findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare dimensional changes and bone quality of two different grafting materials used for socket preservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients requiring extraction were recruited and randomly assigned to receive: biphasic calcium sulfate/ hydroxyapatite (BCS/HA); bovine derived xenograft (BDX) or no grafting (Control). Ridge width (at -3 and -6 mm) and vertical distance from a stent were measured at the time of extraction/grafting. Measurements were repeated at reentry and core biopsies were harvested. RESULTS: Baseline vertical distance for the BDX, C and BCS/HA groups were 7.45 ± 3.1, 7.69 ± 4.2, and 6.75 ± 3.5 mm, respectively (P = .830). Post-op, C group had greater vertical loss (1.71 ± 0.4 mm) compared to BCS/HA (0.65 ± 0.5) and BDX (0.25 ± 0.2 mm), P = .059. Mean baseline width at -3 mm was 8.69 ± 1.1 mm, 8.31 ± 1.4 mm, and 9.0 ± 1.1 mm, respectively (P = .509). Post-op, this width was reduced by 2.96 ± 0.3 mm (C), 1.56 ± 0.4 mm (BDX), and 0.5 ± 0.4 mm (BCS/HA), P = .001. Mean ridge width at -6 mm for the C (6.5 ± 1.7 mm) was significantly smaller than BCS/HA (7.95 ± 2.8 mm) and BDX (8.85 ± 1.9 mm), P = .043. Histologically, the BDX group had greater residual scaffold material and less vital bone compared to the BCS/HA group. Pain scores were relatively low for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: BCS/HA may be used for socket preservation with similar or better results compared to BDX. The significance of greater residual scaffold found in the BDX group is yet to be determined.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".