MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3086534016 · doi:10.1111/cid.12935

Radiological and histological evaluation of horizontal ridge augmentation using corticocancellous freeze‐dried bone allograft with and without autogenous bone: A randomized controlled clinical trial

2020· article· en· W3086534016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M Hashemipoor, Najmeh Asghari, Mahsa Kalantari, Mohaddese Arabsolghar, Hadi Ranjbar

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKerman University of Medical SciencesU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineRadiological weaponRandomized controlled trialDentistryRidgeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was radiological and histological evaluation of horizontal ridge augmentation using corticocancellous freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) with and without autogenous bone (AB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present research was conducted on 42 patients (27 females and 15 males) with insufficient width of edentulous ridge. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups, FDBA alone + collagen membrane (n = 21) and the combined FDBA and AB + collagen membrane (n = 21). The horizontal alveolar ridge dimensions were measured using cone-beam computerized tomography before and 6 months after alveolar ridge augmentation. At the time of insertion of implants, biopsy of new bone was taken from 11 patients in each group and was analyzed histologically. The obtained data were statistically analyzed with paired t test and two-sample t test. The registration number was IRCT201109165305N3. RESULTS: The mean ± SD ridge width gain after 6 months at the distance of 0, 2, 4, and 6 mm from crest of alveolar ridge was 2.78 ± 1.44, 3.05 ± 1.21, 2.82 ± 1.62, and 2.23 ± 1.95 mm in the FDBA group and 2.40 ± 1.60, 3.10 ± 1.80, 3.60 ± 1.87, and 2.65 ± 2.39 mm in the combined group, respectively, which was statistically significant in both groups using paired t test (P < .001). However, the difference between two groups analyzed by two-sample t test was not statistically significant (P > .05). Amount of new bone generation, remained particles, and connective tissue was not statistically different between two groups (P = .367, P = .428, and P = .598, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, corticocancellous FDBA granules along with collagen membrane can successfully be used for horizontal augmentation of edentulous ridge, and adding AB to the granules of FDBA does not significantly increase the quality and quantity of regenerated bone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→