Alveolar ridge preservation of damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets with bovine‐ and porcine‐derived block bone substitutes: A retrospective case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) was introduced to minimize postextraction alveolar bone loss and extraction socket remodeling; however, current knowledge of the ARP procedure for nonintact extraction sockets is still limited and inconclusive. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the difference between using deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) and deproteinized porcine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DPBM-C) when performing ARP procedures in damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets based on clinical, radiographic, and profilometric outcomes. METHODS: In total, 108 extraction sockets were grafted with 67 DBBM-C and 41 DPBM-C. Changes in radiographic (horizontal width and vertical height) and profilometric outcomes were measured after the ARP procedure and before the implant surgery. Postoperative discomfort (including the severity and duration of pain and swelling), early wound healing outcomes (including spontaneous bleeding and persistent swelling), implant stability, and treatment modalities for implant placement were also assessed. RESULTS: Radiographically, the DBBM-C group decreased by -1.70 ± 2.26 mm (-21.50%) and - 1.39 ± 1.85 mm (-30.47%) horizontally and vertically, and the corresponding DPBM-C group decreased by -1.66 ± 1.80 mm (-20.82%) and -1.44 ± 1.97 mm (-27.89%) horizontally and vertically at an average of 5.6 months. There were no serious or adverse complications in any of the cases, and none of the measured parameters differed significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, ARP with DBBM-C and DPBM-C showed similar clinical, radiographic, and profilometric outcomes in nonintact 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".