Soft tissue outcomes following alveolar ridge preservation with/without primary flap closure for periodontally damaged extraction socket: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The changes in soft tissue profile following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with/without primary flap closure (PC) in periodontally damaged sockets have yet to be discovered. METHODS: For periodontally damaged non-molar extraction sockets, ARP with PC (group PC)/without PC (group SC) was performed using granule-type xenogeneic bone substitute material and a collagen barrier. Intraoral scans were performed at the time of ARP and 4 months thereafter. Superimposition of STL files was performed to examine tissue change on the soft tissue level. The level of mucogingival junction (MGJ) was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 28 patient (13 in group PC, 15 in group SC) completed the study. Soft tissue profile change was evaluated only when the measurement level was located on the non-mobile tissue. Group PC tended to shrink less on the long axis of the extraction socket than group SC (-4.3 ± 3.1 mm vs. -5.9 ± 4.4 mm at the 1 mm below the pre-extraction gingival margin, p > 0.05). Profilometric analysis (on the region of interest) also have a tendency of less tissue profile change in group PC than group SC (-1.0 ± 0.8 mm vs. -1.3 ± 0.5 mm, p > 0.05). The MGJ level change was not statistically significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05) even though the MGJ level was located more apically at 4 months in group SC compared with group PC. CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation with PC tended to yield less soft tissue shrinkage than ARP without PC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".