Immediate implant in the posterior region combined with alveolar ridge preservation and sealing socket abutment: A retrospective <scp>3D</scp> radiographic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Customized sealing socket abutment (SSA) has been claimed to optimize the peri-implant hard and soft tissues in type 1 implant placement. However, the evidence to claim the benefits of this technique over the use a conventional healing abutment remains weak. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide a 3D-radiographic evaluation of hard tissues changes following immediate implant placement in molar sites combined to ARP technique and installation of SSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline and follow-up (FU) CBCTs (from 1 to 5 years) of 26 patients were collected and included in the study. Baseline and FU CBCTs were superimposed and horizontal and vertical bone changes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients and 27 implants were included. Horizontal bone remodeling was not significant in any of the measured areas except in the most cervical level, where a mean bone remodeling of 0.73 mm was found. Proximal and buccal vertical bone changes were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of a retrospective study, dimensional alveolar ridge changes 1 to 5 years after immediate implant placement in molar sites with simultaneous ARP technique and installation of SSA seem to be very limited.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".