MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008559477 · doi:10.1002/cap.10094

Treatment of Gingival Fenestration With a Double Pedicle Flap Approach and Dehydrated Amnion–Chorion Membrane: A Case Report

2020· article· en· W3008559477 on OpenAlexaff
Vinay Bhide, Howard C. Tenenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Advances in Periodontics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFenestrationSurgeryAmnionConnective tissuePregnancyFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although gingival fenestrations (GFs) occur with relative infrequency, their actual incidence is thought to be much higher. Furthermore, if left untreated, these mucogingival defects can lead to unfavorable sequelae which can compromise the esthetics and stability of the teeth affected. Most GFs require surgical treatment for closure. Previously reported modalities of treatment include connective tissue grafting, acellular dermal matrix allograft, and pedicle flap approaches. This case demonstrates the first documented use of a dehydrated amnion-chorion membrane (dHACM) to treat GF. CASE PRESENTATION: A surgical approach involving a double pedicle flap and dHACM with 15 months follow-up is described. Following gentle cleansing of the defect and careful split-thickness elevation of a double pedicle flap, the area of exposure fenestration was covered with dHACM. The overlying flap was then closed carefully to completely cover the dHACM. The case presented shows a successful clinical outcome as characterized by successful closure of the fenestration defect with nice tissue maturation. CONCLUSION: The technique described in this case report demonstrates that GFs can be successfully treated with a periodontal plastic surgical approach using dHACM with minimal patient discomfort.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Advances in PeriodonticsSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207