Autogenous interpositional block graft vs onlay graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interpositional block graft revealed promising results in vertical ridge augmentation in the mandible, while scarce evidence is available regarding the use of interpositional block graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of autogenous block interpositional graft vs onlay graft in terms of horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were randomly divided in two groups interpositional and onlay groups, using autogenous blocks harvested from the mandibular symphysis as the donor site. For the interpositional group, the mandibular ridge was split and the harvested block was inserted in the created space and fixated using titanium screws. For the onlay group, the defect site was decorticated and the harvested block was firmly fixated buccally using titanium screws. Immediate and 4 months postoperative cone beam computed tomography scans were taken for assessment. RESULTS: In the interpositional group, the mean preoperative bone width was 3.85 ± 0.6 mm, after 4 months, the mean bone width was 8.84 ± 0.54 mm. While in the onlay group, the mean preoperative bone width was 3.74 ± 0.83 mm while after 4 months the mean bone width was 7.37 ± 1.98 mm. this was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, interpositional block graft appears to be a viable treatment option for horizontal ridge augmentation in the mandible.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".