Bone formation in large/moderate gap after immediate implantation in response to different treatments: a pre-clinical study in the canine posterior mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: This study aims to investigate different treatments on new bone formation around immediate implants in the canine posterior mandible with varying sized mesial-distal gap. Materials and methods: The 4th premolar and the 1st molar of six Labrador dogs were extracted from the mandible, and 4 dental implants were placed 1 mm below the level of the buccal bone crest. Moderate/large mesial-distal gaps between the implants and the sockets were treated with one of four methods and divided into the following groups: (1) the blank group, (2) the collagen membrane (CM) group, (3) the deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) group, and (4) the DBBM+CM group. Sequential fluorescent labeling was performed at 4, 8, and 10 weeks after the operation. After 12 weeks, the dogs were euthanized, and specimens were collected for micro-CT scanning and histological analysis. Results: The survival rate of immediate implant was 100%. Micro-CT showed significant differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone volume fraction (BVF) among groups (P = 0.040, P = 0.009); other indicators were not significantly different among groups. Histological analysis showed the proportion of new bone formation and bone-to-implant contact were not significantly different among groups. No significant difference in bone reduction height around dental implant among four groups and varied mesial-distal gap size. Conclusion: Owing to the restricted sample size, this pilot study lacks conclusive findings. Within the limitation, this study demonstrated that although DBBM significantly increase BMD and BVF, the use of DBBM/CM didn’t significantly improve bone formation and healing in extraction sockets around the implants in both moderate and large mesial-distal gap. Clinical Relevance: The use of deproteinized bovine bone in conjunction with collagen is a common practice in immediate implantation procedures in the posterior mandible. However, there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the timing and circumstances under which they should be employed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".