The impact of autologous concentrated growth factors on the alveolar ridge preservation after posterior tooth extraction: A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alveolar ridge preservation can effectively decrease alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction, but it can be limited by reducing new bone formation and residual bone graft material. Efforts to develop more efficacious approaches are thus an area of active research. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of autologous concentrated growth factors (CGF) on alveolar ridge absorption and osteogenesis following posterior tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients were randomly assigned to have extraction sockets treated with CGF or no treatment. At 10 days, 1 month, and 3 months postextraction, soft tissue color and texture were examined and evaluated with healing score. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed before and 3 months after extraction, while radiographic analyses were used to assess vertical and horizontal bone changes. Bone samples were collected from the extraction sockets during implant placement, and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans and histological analysis were performed to evaluate new bone formation. t-Test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare data and the level of statistical significance was set at 0.05 for all analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six patients completed the trial. Sockets in the experimental group exhibited significantly better healing score on Day 10 postextraction relative to the control group, whereas comparable healing was observed in both groups at 1 and 3 months postextraction. Experimental group exhibited reduced vertical bone changes relative to the control (p < 0.05). Significant reductions were observed in ridge width changes at 1 and 2 mm apical to the crest (p < 0.05), although differences at 3 and 5 mm apical to the crest were not significant. Significant differences of bone mineral density (BMD) and microarchitecture of trabecular bone were observed via micro-CT analyses, and the experimental group had better results. CONCLUSION: CGF application following posterior tooth extraction may reduce vertical and horizontal bone resorption and promote new bone formation.
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) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".