Effectiveness of bilayer porous polyethylene membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Porous polyethylene has been successfully used in several medical applications with good outcomes. Based on this, a new bilayer porous polyethylene membrane (B-PPM) was developed for possibly being used as a membrane in alveolar ridge preservation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a new B-PPM in comparison to high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (d-PTFE) in alveolar ridge preservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients were randomized into two groups according to the membranes used to cover the socket (B-PPM or d-PTFE). Wound healing was monitored at day 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 4 months postoperatively. Dimensional changes of alveolar ridge were measured immediately after tooth extraction and at 4 months later using intraoral scanner and cone beam computed tomography. Bone cores were harvested before implant placement. Implant stability at insertion and prior to prosthesis delivery were also measured. RESULTS: No significant difference in socket wound closure between groups was observed excepting at day 14 that B-PPM showed a faster wound closure than d-PTFE (P = .03). Greater bone resorptions were seen on buccal than lingual side and on coronal than apical part of the alveolar ridge. No significant difference in dimensional changes of alveolar ridge, new bone formation, connective tissue content, residual bone grafts, and implant stability between two groups. CONCLUSION: B-PPPM was safe and effective for alveolar ridge preservation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".