Assessment of vertical ridge augmentation and marginal bone loss using autogenous onlay vs inlay grafting techniques with simultaneous implant placement in the anterior maxillary esthetic zone: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bony reconstruction and dental rehabilitation of patients with posttraumatic anterior maxillary alveolar defects is a very complicated procedure. The aim of this study is the assessment of vertical ridge augmentation using autogenous onlay vs inlay bone grafting techniques in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients (40 implants) with vertically deficient anterior maxillary alveolar ridges were equally allocated into two groups; Autogenous block bone graft was harvested from the chin with simultaneous implant placement was done either onlay (control) or inlay (study). Radiographic assessment was performed preoperatively, 1 week and 6 months postoperatively. Assessment included measurements of linear changes in the vertical height on cross sectional cuts of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) using special software. Finally, the amount of vertical gain and marginal bone loss in each group was compared to that of the other. RESULTS: Wound healing was uneventful for all cases except three cases of the onlay group showed wound breakdown and graft loss. The mean vertical bone gain in the control group was -0.02 mm while in the study was 3.34 mm. While the mean of the crestal bone loss of the control group was 4.77 mm and that of the study group was 1.65 mm. CONCLUSION: The final vertical bone gain was statistically significant in the study group, so the inlay bone grafting technique with immediate implant placement could be used successfully for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation in the esthetic zone.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".