MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313278099 · doi:10.1111/cid.13168

Soft tissue esthetics around immediately provisionalized delayed implants with and without connective tissue graft: A randomized clinical trial pilot study

2022· article· en· W4313278099 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dina Abdelwahab, Azza Ezz AlArab, Hani El Nahass

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSoft tissueDentistryConnective tissueImplantRandomized controlled trialHard tissueConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the peri-implant soft tissue esthetics following a single, immediately provisionalized, delayed implant with/-out subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The eligible patients were randomized into two groups. Immediate provisionalization was performed with (test group: SCTGG) or without SCTG (control group: NGG). The soft tissue esthetics was assessed by Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI), at 6 and 12 months, following final implant restoration. RESULTS: The SCTGG, compared to NGG, yielded a 0.2 increased PES at 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI): -1, 1.4) and a 0.2 decreased MSI score (95% CI -0.9, 0.5) with no statistically significant differences in PES and MSI between both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Soft tissue grafting around immediately provisionalized delayed implants could exhibit comparable results to immediate provisionalization alone in terms of peri-implant soft tissue esthetics using PES and MSI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03770975).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→