Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Tooth Block Graft Compared with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate the current knowledge of implant treatment outcome following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft compared with autogenous bone block graft prior to implant placement. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through December 20, 2021. Comparative and non-comparative studies assessing lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft were included. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE system. Results: One comparative study characterized by low grade and two non-comparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No significant difference in short-term implant survival, health status of the peri-implant tissue or frequency of complications between the two treatment modalities was observed. Postoperative dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge width were significant diminished with tooth block compared with bone block (P = 0.0029). Consequently, the gain in alveolar ridge width was significantly higher with tooth block, after 26 weeks (P = 0.014). However, a higher frequency of short-term peri-implant mucositis was observed with tooth block. Conclusions: Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with tooth block seems to be a suitable alternative to bone block. However, results of the present systematic review are based on short-term studies involving small patient samples. Further long-term randomized controlled trials are therefore needed before definite conclusions can be provided about the beneficial use of tooth block compared with bone block.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".