Three‐dimensional analysis of dimensional changes after alveolar ridge preservation with bone substitutes or plasma rich in growth factors: Randomized and controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alveolar ridge dimensional changes of different alveolar ridge preservation techniques after 3 months of tooth extraction and to compare the efficacy of autologous plasma rich in growth factor (PRGF) to the bone substitutes in alveolar ridge preservation and sites left to heal spontaneously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients requiring tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla were randomly allocated to the four following treatment modalities: spontaneous healing (control), natural bovine bone mineral covered with resorbable native collagen membrane (BBM/CM), freeze-dried bone allograft covered with resorbable native collagen membrane (FDBA/CM) and PRGF alone. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken after surgery and 3 months later. The measurements of height and width (at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the crest) were performed after superimposing the 2 consecutive CBCT scans. RESULTS: The greatest horizontal alveolar bone resorption at 1 mm below bone crest was observed in the control group (-1.61 ± 1.76 mm, P = .037), whereas the least reduction in width was found in the BBM/CM group (-0.68 ± 0.67 mm, P = .037). The most pronounced alveolar height reduction was observed in the control group (-0.86 ± 0.43 mm), whereas alveolar ridge preservation with BBMC/CM (-0.26 ± 0.91 mm) and PRGF (-0.54 ± 0.86 mm) successfully reduced the alveolar height reduction as compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation technique in the esthetic zone using BBM/CM or using PRGF is beneficial to reduce horizontal and vertical bone changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".