Effectiveness of the bone ring technique and simultaneous implant placement for vertical ridge augmentation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dimensional changes after dental extraction frequently lead to situations in which bone augmentation procedures are required prior to dental implant placement. Bone ring technique (BRT) has been described as a one-stage approach to restore vertical alveolar ridge defects, in which an autogenous or allogeneic cortico-cancellous bone block graft is stabilized with a dental implant inserted simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical performance of BRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool were used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. RESULTS: Sixteen studies with a total of 186 patients treated with 219 bone rings bocks were included in the review. The studies showed a mean bone gain of 4.94 mm, mean bone resorption of 0.83 mm, and mean marginal bone loss of 0.57 mm after a mean follow-up period of 13.35 months. A mean bone ring survival rate of 97.26% and implant survival rate of 94.97% were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: BRT would appear to be an adequate alternative technique for restoring single vertical alveolar ridge defects with simultaneous dental implant placement. However, further studies comparing this technique with other vertical ridge augmentation procedures in different clinical scenarios are needed to confirm the present results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".