The role of cortical perforations in allogeneic block grafting for lateral augmentation in maxilla: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The need of decortication on the recipient site remains unclear for bone regeneration. To our knowledge, there are no human clinical trials that studied the influence of decortication on cancellous allogeneic block grafting. Purpose The aim of the present study is to evaluate the influence of perforating the cortex of the recipient site on cancellous allogeneic block graft integration and revascularization in the maxilla. Material and Methods Twenty‐six patients referred for lateral bone augmentation were included in this clinical trial. Patients received freeze‐dried bone allograft cancellous blocks obtained from the iliac crest; cortical perforations of the recipient bed were performed in the test group while in the control group it was left intact. After a 4‐month healing period another surgery was performed to place dental implants, and a bone biopsy was collected using a trephine. All samples underwent micro‐CT scans, and were processed for histomorphometric and immunohistochemical analysis. Implant survival comparisons were made using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) while all other variables were compared using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results One hundred and nineteen implants were placed into 110 augmented sites. One hundred percent implant survival rate was reported during 24 months follow‐up period. No differences were reported in bleeding on probing at 1 (5.6 vs 9%) and 2 years (13.2 vs 12.1%), probing pocket depth at 1 (3.4 ± 0.95 vs 3.6 ± 1.12 mm) and 2 years (3.8 ± 1.02 vs 4.1 ± 1.46 mm), and marginal bone loss at 1 (0.2 ± 0.52 vs 0.3 ± 0.57 mm) and 2 years (0.6 ± 0.91 vs 0.5 ± 0.87 mm). No statistically significant differences were found in the micro‐CT and histomorphometric analysis in terms of newly formed bone (25.7 ± 11.2% vs 22.3 ± 9.7%), soft tissue (33.0 ± 14.7% vs 36.5 ± 15.7%), remnant allograft (39.3 ± 20.4% vs 41.2 ± 22.7%), and bone mineralization (57.2 ± 10.6% vs 53.8 ± 8.7%). Perforating the cortex of the recipient site had no significant effect on angiogenesis as shown by immunohistochemical analysis of CD34 positive blood vessels (39.21 ± 10.53/mm2 vs 34.16 ± 12.67/mm2). Conclusion Cancellous allogeneic bone block grafts are a clinically acceptable alternative for horizontal bone augmentation. Cortical perforations of the recipient site in the maxilla did not improve angiogenesis nor bone formation within the block graft.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".