MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213194903 · doi:10.1111/cid.13070

Radiographic assessment of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and collagen‐stabilized DBBM for transalveolar sinus floor elevation: A 2‐year retrospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W4213194903 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yefeng Wu, Pei Xiao, Antian Xu, Fuming He

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyDentistryNuclear medicineChemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Theoretically, collagen-stabilized deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM-C) has better operability compared with DBBM. DBBM-C avoids dispersing during the transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) because of its block shape. PURPOSE: To evaluate radiological changes of using DBBM-C in TSFE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received TSFE using DBBM (Bio-Oss®) or DBBM-C (Bio-Oss® collagen) with simultaneous implantation were recruited. Graft bone height apically (aGH), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), and crest bone level (CBL) were assessed through panoramic radiograph and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). RESULTS: A total of 138 patients (138 implants) were retrospectively enrolled. After 2 years of implantation, the incidence of postoperative complications was 4.2% (95% CI: 0.9%-11.7%) and 4.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-12.7%) for DBBM and DBBM-C groups, respectively. Measured in panoramic radiograph, ΔaGH of DBBM-C (1.8 mm, SD: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-2.4, P = 0.044) group was significantly higher than that of DBBM (1.2 mm, SD: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.7-1.7) after 24 months. No significant differences for ΔCBL were noted during the entire observation period. Measured through CBCT, ESBG was 5.0 (SD: 1.8, 95% CI: 4.1-5.8) mm in DBBM group and 4.6 (SD: 1.6, 95% CI: 3.9-5.3) mm in DBBM-C group 24 months after implantation. The aGH value of DBBM-C group was significantly higher compared with DBBM in CBCT (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.9, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: DBBM-C could achieve similar bone generation as DBBM in TSFE. Both materials could maintain aGH, ESBG, and CBL relatively stable 2 years after implantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→