Comparison of in‐situ bone ring technique and tent‐pole technique for horizontally deficient alveolar ridge in the anterior maxilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited studies focused on the bone profile maintenance at the alveolar ridge crest applying horizontal bone augmentation. PURPOSE: A novel approach named as "in-situ bone ring technique" was introduced to be compared with tent-pole technique to evaluate their horizontal bone gain, resorption, and postoperative perception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients were included in this retrospective cohort study. All patients required horizontal bone augmentation at anterior site. Accordingly, quantitative and qualitative analyses were conduct radiographically and histologically between in-situ bone ring (ring group) and tent-pole technique (tent group). Moreover, the visual analog scale (VAS) was introduced to assess the patients' perception toward both treatments. RESULTS: Cone-beam computed tomography results showed great significant difference regarding horizontal bone width at 0 mm and 3 mm from alveolar ridge crest between two groups (P < .05). On the basis of histological outcomes, delightful bony fusion was shown 6-month postoperatively in ring group. The VAS ratings for pain and swelling reflected similar results between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In-situ bone ring technique evidently increased and maintained horizontal bone mass at the alveolar ridge crest compared to tent-pole technique, which might be favorable for implant rehabilitation in anterior area. Meanwhile, no further discomfort was caused according to VAS scoring between two groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".