A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to reestablish buccal convexity at implant sites: A 1‐year volumetric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To volumetrically compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) with connective tissue graft (CTG) to reestablish convexity at the buccal aspect of single implants. Materials and methods Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single‐blind randomized clinical trial (RCT). All sites had a buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant, and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to reestablish buccal soft tissue convexity. Patients received a provisional crown at 3 months and a permanent crown at 6 months. Primary outcomes were volumetric increase (mm3) and linear increase (mm) in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) within a well‐defined area of interest at fixed time points. Alveolar process deficiency was a secondary outcome. Results Twenty‐one patients were included per group (control: 11 females, mean age 51; test: 9 females, mean age 48). After 1 year, GBR resulted in a significant volumetric increase of 20.74 mm3(P< .001) corresponding to linear increase in BSP of 1.30 mm (P< .001). For CTG, this was 15.86 (P< .001) and 1.19 mm (P< .001), respectively. The changes over time in volume (P= .173) and BSP (P= .241) were not significantly different between the groups. Twenty‐nine percentage and 26% of the final volumetric increase was the result of installing and altering prosthetic components in the control and test groups, respectively. Alveolar process deficiency significantly reduced from pre‐op to 1 year following GBR (P< .001) and CTG (P< .001). The difference between the groups was not significant (P= .342). However, 58% of the patients treated with GBR and 38% treated with CTG failed to show perfect soft tissue convexity at the buccal aspect. Conclusion GBR as well as CTG are effective in reducing horizontal alveolar defects for aesthetic purposes. However, in about half of the cases, either strategy failed to optimally reestablish buccal convexity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".