Primary flap closure in alveolar ridge preservation for periodontally damaged extraction socket: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effect of primary wound closure (PC) on alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in periodontally damaged sockets has yet to be fully discovered. METHODS: Periodontally damaged sockets were allocated to one of the following groups: (1) ARP with PC (group PC), and (2) ARP without PC (group secondary wound closure [SC]). Following tooth extraction and flap elevation, granule-type xenogeneic bone substitute material and a collagen barrier were applied. Ridge change was evaluated using cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans immediately after ARP and at 4 months. Core biopsy specimens were examined histomorphometrically. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients were included in the analysis (13 in group PC, 15 in group SC). Histomorphometrically, the percentage of newly formed bone was 26.2 ± 17.7% and 24.6 ± 18.4% in groups PC and SC, respectively (independent t-test, degree of freedom [df] = 25, p > 0.05). Horizontal ridge changes on CBCT were -4.9 ± 3.1 mm and - 4.2 ± 2.5 mm in groups PC and SC at the 1 mm level below the ridge crest, respectively (independent t-test, df = 26, p > 0.05). Approximately half of the sites required additional bone augmentation at implant placement. CONCLUSIONS: ARP with/without PC yielded similar new bone formation and radiographic ridge change. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization (https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/19718).
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".