Effect of enamel matrix derivative on alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior maxilla: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: EMD has been considered to exert positive effects on wound healing, postoperative discomfort, and bone regeneration. PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to investigate and compare (a) horizontal and vertical bone dimensional changes, (b) early postoperative discomfort and soft tissue wound healing outcomes, and (c) treatment modalities for implant placement, following posterior maxillary alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with and without adjunctive use of EMD. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants were randomly assigned to three groups: extraction sockets filled with bovine bone mineral and membrane with EMD (test group 1, n = 10) and without EMD (test group 2, n = 10) and spontaneous healing (control group, n = 8). Alveolar bone dimensional changes were measured using cone-beam computed tomography 5 months after ARP, and postoperative pain and wound healing outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in horizontal or vertical bone dimensional changes between test groups 1 (horizontal width changes at 1 mm apically below the alveolar ridge crest [HW]: -1.44 ± 0.54 mm) and 2 (HW: -1.42 ± 0.26 mm), but the changes at HW (-2.36 ± 1.03 mm) in the control group were significantly greater than those in test groups 1 and 2 (P < .05). Early postoperative discomfort and soft tissue wound healing outcomes were not significantly different between the two test groups. Furthermore, unlike the control group, both the test groups 1 and 2 were implanted without sinus floor elevation using the lateral approach. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, EMD failed to provide additional benefits in ARP in the posterior maxilla.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".