MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229022489 · doi:10.1002/cap.10141

Use of a Novel In Situ Hardening Biphasic Alloplastic Bone Grafting Material for Guided Bone Regeneration Around Dental Implants: A Prospective Case Series

2020· article· en· W4229022489 on OpenAlexaff
Liran Levin, Danielle Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Advances in Periodontics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantDentistryDehiscenceBone graftingSoft tissueDental implantOsseointegrationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The novel bioresorbable polymer poly (lactide‐co‐glycolic acid) (PLGA) coated biphasic calcium phosphate material (BCP) hardens into a stable and porous hard tissue scaffold when exposed to body fluids. The self‐containable, stable bone graft material might be beneficial for facilitating guided bone regeneration (GBR) around dental implants, especially for a defect with an absence of bony wall(s). The aim of this prospective case series is to evaluate the post‐surgical implant survival and success where the in situ hardening BCP was used for GBR around dental implants. Case Series Ten patients received 13 implants with simultaneous bone augmentation. Dehiscence and/or fenestration type of bony defect was detected in nine surgical sites, and three surgical sites exhibited a suprabony defect. In nine out of the 13 implants, a membrane was used in conjunction with the bone grafting. Patients were evaluated at the day of the surgery as well as 2 weeks, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. All post‐surgical wounds were uneventfully healed. Radiographic bone levels showed stability over time with an average bone loss/remodeling of 0.19 ± 0.6 mm (range, −0.5‐1.5 mm) from implant placement to the last follow‐up at 12 months. All implants survived after 12 months. Conclusions Implant placement with simultaneous bone grafting using the in situ hardening BCP, was shown to be a viable and safe procedure with stable clinical and radiographic results over the follow‐up period. Further long‐term studies are warranted, however, the combination of the ease of handling and the favorable results are promising.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Advances in PeriodonticsSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207