Influence of ridge preservation procedures on extraction socket healing under antiresorptive therapy: An experimental study in rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of ridge preservation procedures on the healing of extraction sockets under antiresorptive therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 10 Dutch Belted rabbits were randomly allocated to either the intravenous administration of amino-bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid) (Za) (n = 5) or a negative control group (no Za [nZa]) (n = 5). At 6 months, the mandibular and maxillary molars were extracted and the four experimental sites randomly allocated to the following subgroups: (a) socket grafting using a collagen-coated natural bone mineral (BOC) + primary wound closure, (b) coronectomy (CO), or (c) spontaneous healing + primary wound closure (SP). Za medication was continued for another 4 months. Histomorphometrical analyses considered, for example, crestal hard tissue closure of the extraction site (C) and mineralized tissue (MT) formation. RESULTS: Za-SP was associated with an incomplete median C (31.76% vs 100% in nZa-SP) and signs of bone arrosion along the confines of the socket. BOC had no major effects on increases in C and MT values in the Za group. CO commonly resulted in an encapsulation and partial replacement resorption of residual roots by MT without any histological signs of osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: (a) Za-SP was commonly associated with a compromised socket healing and signs of osteonecrosis, (b) BOC had no major effect on socket healing in the Za group, and (c) CO at noninfected teeth might be a feasible measure for the prevention of a Za-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".