Incorporation of anterior iliac crest or calvarial bone grafts in reconstructed atrophied maxillae: A randomized clinical trial with histomorphometric and micro‐CT analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autologous bone grafts have been applied successfully to severely atrophied maxilla via a preimplant procedure. Differences in graft incorporation at the microscopic level can be the decisive factor in the choice between anterior iliac crest and calvarial bone. PURPOSE: To compare conversion of anterior iliac crest bone and calvarial bone 4 months after grafting of the edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients were randomly assigned to either anterior iliac crest (n = 10) or calvarial (n = 10) bone harvesting to reconstruct their atrophied maxillae. Biopsies were taken from both fresh bone grafts and reconstructed maxillae after 4 months healing, at time of implant placement. Micro-CT, histomorphometric and histological analyses were performed. RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis revealed that both the anterior iliac crest and calvarial bone grafts retained their volume and bone mass after being incorporated in the maxilla, but with a favor for calvarial bone grafts: calvarial bone grafts had a higher mineral density before and after incorporation. Both bone grafts types were well incorporated after 4 months of healing with preservation of bone volume and mineral density. Although the fresh bone biopsies were similar histomorphometrically, after 4 months of graft incorporation, the osteoid percentage and osteocyte count remained higher in the anterior iliac crest bone whereas the percentage of bone was higher in the calvarial bone grafts compared to the anterior iliac crest bone grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Both donor sites, that is, anterior iliac crest and calvarial bone, are well suited to provide a reliable and stable basis for implant placement 4 months after grafting with mineral density, porosity, and resorption rate in favor of calvarial bone grafts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".