Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate dimensional bone alterations following horizontal ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (GBR) with or without autogenous block graft (ABG) for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws with dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients, with 42 severe horizontal bone atrophy sites in the maxilla or mandible were randomly assigned to two groups: ABG or GBR. The ABG group received a combination of ABG with particulate xenograft, covered by a collagen membrane, while the GBR group received particulate xenograft alone, covered by a collagen membrane. After 6-9 months of healing, implants were inserted. All implants were definitively restored 6 months after implant placement. Radiographic examination (cone-beam computed tomograms) was performed immediately after bone grafting procedure (T0), at 6 months (T6), and at 18 months (T18), to evaluate the amount of horizontal bone width (HBW) gain. Patient demographic information, amount of ridge width augmentation, implant survival, complications, and contributing factors were gathered and analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients completed the study. Both groups developed enough bone ridge width for implant placement. A total of 65 implants were placed. Implant survival rate was 100% in both groups at T18. Mean increases in HBW amounted to 5.6 ± 1.35 mm in GBR sites and 4.8 ± 0.79 mm in ABG sites at T18. There was no statistically significant difference in HBW gain obtained in the GBR group when compared to the ABG group at 6 months (P = 0.26) or 18 months (P = 0.26). However, the ABG group had a statistically significant higher prevalence of sensory disturbances (P = 0.02) and hematomas (P = 0.002) compared to the GBR group. CONCLUSION: These findings indicated that either GBR with or without ABG is an effective approach in augmenting resorbed horizontal deficient ridges prior to implant placement. However, more complications may be seen with the use of ABG related to the donor sites.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".