Clinical evaluations of alveolar ridge preservation in compromised extraction sockets with cortical‐lamina anchoring technique: Case series study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in the compromised extraction sockets using autogenous cortical-lamina anchoring technique (CAT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients were treated with ARP in the compromised extraction sockets by applying CAT. Then implant placement and crown delivery was performed. A planned follow-up was performed by analyzing various outcome measures to evaluate the clinical outcomes, including primary outcome measures [radiographic assessment of residual alveolar ridge height (RARH) and residual alveolar ridge width (RARW)] and secondary outcome measures [clinical assessment of the healing of the soft and hard tissue, survival rates of implants, marginal bone loss (MBL) evaluation of implants, buccal bone thickness (BBT), and esthetic treatment outcomes]. RESULTS: Among the 20 patients, 17 were consecutively treated and 3 dropped out after implant crown delivery because of loss to follow-up. After the ARP, the initial RARH (12.37 mm) significantly increased to 19.29 mm (P < .05). No significant difference was detected in the RARW before (7.92 ± 1.18 mm) and after (7.92 ± 1.18 mm) the ARP, but reduce to 6.99 ± 1.18 mm at the implant placement and 6.64 ± 0.77 mm at the 3-year follow-up (P < .05). The MBL at the implant crown delivery (0.13 ± 0.12 mm) significantly increased to 0.31 ± 0.14 mm at 1-year follow-up and 0.56 ± 0.23 mm at 3-year follow-up, respectively. The bone loss was limited (<1 mm) but statistically significant (P < .05). The BBT at the implant placement (2.53 ± 0.56 mm) significantly reduced to 2.23 ± 0.44 mm at implant crown delivery and 2.14 ± 0.40 mm at 3-year follow-up, respectively. The bone loss was also limited (<0.5 mm) but statistically significant (P < .05). Each implant site showed acceptable aesthetic outcome and the average score was 16.4. The incisions healed uneventful in all patients and the implant survival rate was 100% during the 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Autogenous CAT was successfully applied to preserve the height and width of alveolar ridge in the compromised extraction sockets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".