Maxillary vertical alveolar ridge augmentation using computer‐guided sandwich osteotomy technique with simultaneous implant placement versus conventional technique: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sandwich osteotomy technique (Inlay bone grafting) is considered as a highly reliable procedure for vertical bone augmentation in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone. The aim of this study was to compare vertical bone gain and palatal tipping using computer-guided inlay technique versus the conventional technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial including 12 patients who were randomly divided into two groups: sandwich osteotomy with simultaneous implant placement at the anterior maxillary esthetic zone (six patients) using patient-specific guides (PSGs) in the study group versus conventional technique (six patients). In the control group, free-hand sandwich osteotomy was done, while in the study group all the procedures were performed with two sequential PSGs with cutting slits, guiding holes, and implant sleeves. Radiographic assessment included measurements of linear changes in the vertical dimensions of the labial plate of bone and palatal tipping on cross-sectional cuts of cone-beam computed tomography using special software. RESULTS: All the procedures were uneventful except one case of the study group showed a cracked bony segment that did not affect the final outcome. Radiographic results showed comparable bone gain in both groups with no statistical significance difference (study group 4.4 mm, control group 3.9 mm). To the contrary, the computer-guided approach significantly reduced the palatal tipping to 0.4 mm compared to 2.1 mm in the conventional group, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p-value <0.001). CONCLUSION: Sandwich osteotomy using PSGs appears to be efficient and showed promising results regarding improving the palatal tipping compared to the free-hand technique.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".