Clinical outcomes following a combined vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation and two‐stage implant placement using either autogenous tooth roots or autogenous bone blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess and compare the short-term clinical outcomes following a combined vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation and two-stage implant placement using either autogenous tooth roots (TR) or autogenous bone blocks (AB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of n = 27 patients (TR/AB: 13/14) exhibiting n = 31 implants (TR/AB: 14/17) were available for the analysis. Each subject had been allocated to a combined vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using either (1) healthy TR (e.g., retained wisdom teeth), or (2) monocortical AB harvested from the retromolar area (i.e. external oblique line). Clinical parameters (e.g., bleeding on probing, BOP; probing pocket depth, PD; mucosal recession, MR) were recorded after a follow-up period of 16.03 ± 4.3 months following implant placement. RESULTS: The survival rates amounted to 100% in both groups. TR and AB grafted sites were associated with similar changes in mean BOP (8.97 ± 27.73%; 11.90 ± 18.97%), PD (0.53 ± 0.49; 0.47 ± 0.67 mm), and MR (0.03 ± 0.13; 0.0 ± 0.02 mm) values. The incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at the patient level amounted to 15.38% and 0.0% in the TR-, and 28.57% and 7.14% in the AB group. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical procedures were associated with peri-implant tissue health and stability on the short-term.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".