MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285795672 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1819762/v1

Bone formation around implants in extraction sockets after immediate implantation in response to different treatments: a pre-clinical study in the canine posterior mandible

2022· preprint· en· W4285795672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yiwen Zhang, Qin Zhou, Jing Wu, Yong Zhou, Mohan Wang, Zhiyuan Zhang, Duohong Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Municipal Education CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPremolarMandible (arthropod mouthpart)DentistryDental alveolusMolarImplantBone formationMedicineSurgeryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim This study aimed to explore new bone formation around implants in extraction sockets after immediate implantation in the canine posterior mandible in response to different treatments. Materials and methods The 4th premolar and the 1st molar of six Labrador dogs were extracted from the mandible, and then, 4 dental implants were implanted. The mesial and distal gaps between the implants and the sockets were treated with one of four methods and divided into the following groups: (1) the blank group (group BG), (2) the collagen membrane (CM) group (group C), (3) the deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) group (group D), and (4) the DBBM+CM group (group DC). Sequential fluorescent labeling was performed at 4, 8, and 10 weeks after the operation. After 12 weeks, the dogs were euthanized, and specimens were collected for micro-CT scanning and histological analysis. Results The survival rate was 100%. Micro-CT showed significant differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone volume fraction (BVF) among the four groups (P = 0.040, P = 0.009); other indicators were not significantly different among the groups. Histological analysis showed that the proportion of new bone formation and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were not significantly different among the groups. Conclusion The current study demonstrated that although DBBM can significantly increase BMD and BVF, the use of DBBM and CM did not significantly improve bone formation in extraction sockets around the implants.Clinical relevance According to the current animal experiment, DBBM and CM may not have a significant impact on bone formation in the extraction socket of IIP in the posterior mandible, suggesting that there was no sufficient reason to recommend the application of these two kinds of materials in mesiodistal extraction sockets around IIP in mandibular molar sites.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→